Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?

[CBH1926]

5 hours ago, LordCanuck said:

the extreme right was created way back in bush's days and went into overdrive during obama. Theyve always existed in some form. wow ok i dont know why i even quoted u, ur a special snowflake.

I like how you consider 10-15 years ago way back.

Joking aside,  JBS was a one of the first right wing groups in USA, they were founded in the 1950’s.

[CBH1926]

Anyone that disagrees with my views, is either a fascist  or a pinko.

Edited July 31, 2018 by CBH1926

[Undrafted]

5 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Noticing more and more the radicalization of pretty much every societal issue by the extreme and right and left wing political agendas.   You are either "one of them" or you are "one of us" with no ability to embrace a bit from both and then ask for compromise on other items.    The extreme left want nothing to do with individual accountability, want environmental programs void of scientific reason, open borders, economic policies that remove all incentives and instead distribute all wealth equally and so forth.   The extreme right don't believe in privilege by birth, believe people in bad situations (health or economic) are their by choice (laziness typically cited) and think government's role in society should be kept to maintaining infrastructure/military.

 

Where is the there room anymore for people who simply want:

• fiscal responsibility by government that doesn't mortgage the future for the present
• fair taxation that has sufficient incentives to promote success/innovation (e.g. keeping options taxed lower) but is void of excessive loopholes to benefit the very few (offshore shelters)
• taking care of those who cannot take of themselves but having a hard line on those who simply "expect" a living from society
• health care that has access to all who need it but can also accommodate a parallel process for those who wish to pay more (and that doesn't take away from the societal access system)
• environmental management that balances human activities, science and avoids extreme agendas - and avoids NIMBY policies/politicis
• balanced economy with removal of the hypocrisy of society demanding one thing and then making that thing impossible to deliver - e.g. don't embrace the concept of "Walmart" if you want fair wages in countries where kids make shoes for you
• has immigration/refugee programs that are fair, transparent and predictable 
• a judicial system that treats crimes that harm society with commensurate sentencing and is both colour and economically blind

 

The list is clearly longer but more and more, depending up on the audience, people who strive for things like those noted above are either noted as "right wing" by people on the left or "liberal/left" by people on the right.    

 

The US seemingly desperately needs a third party now that one has been hijacked by the loonies at the extreme right but the leftards seemingly have the other party well in hand.  Canada is a curious case as the furthest "Right" party is probably what the Democrats in the US used to be and the Liberals in Canada have taken over the left agenda - leaving the NDP where exactly is hard to know.   Germany doesn't have anyone in the middle.   

 

Is there room?   I think someone offering the above would be a massive problem for the extremists at both ends and would lead to long-term, stable majority governments.

I think you're only half-correct.  What you haven't taken into account is the fact that the definition of where the centre is and who a moderate is has changed over the last few years.  Today's "centre" is more on the right and a "moderate conservative" is what used to be a hard-right conservative; what used to be a centrist position is now considered to be on the left. 

 

Myself, I used to be considered centre-right (as a former "Red Tory" Progressive Conservative voter).  These days, people would consider my views to be "hard left" as a "social progressive" even though my views themselves have not changed very much.  I mean, just look at how Conservative voters viewed Michael Chong: he and his supporters were lambasted for being "fake conservatives" (never mind the many racists in the party who simply didn't like the fact he wasn't 100% white).  For me personally, that was the last straw when it came to the Conservative Party--it was clear that people like me were no longer welcome because I'm a "fake conservative".

 

IMO, all this lies at the feet of today's conservatives.  It started with the introduction of "wedge politics" by the US Republicans of the 1980s, which in turn was embraced by conservative political parties across the Western world, including Harper's Conservatives.  And now the wedge has been driven so deep after all these years of it, that we have the divided society we have now.  That wedge has dumbed down political discourse from being a nuanced discussion of issues to blind cheerleading for one's party, especially on the conservative side.

 

I'm also from the generation that used to be taught: "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the government."  I used to honestly believe in that but I don't anymore.  The notion that there's no one worthy of voting for has never been more true than it is today.  These days, IF I vote, it's "negative voting" whereupon I'm voting to keep someone unpalatable out of office and the irony isn't lost on me that in the last federal and provincial elections, I voted against so-called 'conservative' parties.

[Baer.]

3 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

The crime, violent crime, and murder rates in Venezuela have been rising since the start of the Bolivarian Revolution. And yes, the rates continued to go up after 2012. But the rate of increase was actually greater before 2012, and has somewhat decreased since. 

 

Now personally, I would never use crime rates from a failed state to make an argument (either pro or anti) about gun control. 

 

I’d much rather look at research like this:

https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/38/1/140/2754868

 

The above is systematic review of 130 studies, from 10 countries, over a 64 year period.

 

The results are clear: gun control saves lives.

Regardless of whether or not it was rising before 2012, they still had the highest murder rate in the world despite the gun ban.

 

Furthermore, my argument was that a disarmed nation is much easier to control, and that's exactly what's happening. I wasn't arguing for or against gun control.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Baer.

[Tortorella's Rant]

Tribal mentality has always been a thing. Politicians are just a reflection of the direction society is going, has gone..

[JM_]

7 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Is there room?   I think someone offering the above would be a massive problem for the extremists at both ends and would lead to long-term, stable majority governments.

Absolutely. More people are moderates than not, its just we're not getting great choices for candidates. 

 

What we need is to re-engage people at the candidate selection level. If more people are involved in selecting candidates in primaries we'll get better people. 

 

This is where the gov't could step in and set up a safe online voting system for primaries, more people would get engaged if they could vote online for the candidates they want, and spend at least a little bit of time considering some issues. 

[HerrDrFunk]

36 minutes ago, Baer. said:

Regardless of whether or not it was rising before 2012, they still had the highest murder rate in the world despite the gun ban.

 

Furthermore, my argument was that a disarmed nation is much easier to control, and that's exactly what's happening. I wasn't arguing for or against gun control.

 

[xereau]

Here is how you guarantee centrist moderate governments.

 

1.  Have many parties.

• Forces cooperation and partnerships, coalition governments.  Grinds everything radical to a halt immediately.  Even good legislation can be picked to bare bones via compromise.  Having sleek, simple legislation is the best for Liberty.

 

2.  Have a None of the Above option.

• If None of the Above actually wins an election, you should not be able to run again.  Full reboot of candidates.  This will force honest, simple platforms that have nothing to do with scaring you about the other guy, rather, forcing you to show the people why you are the best choice.  This leads to:

 

3.  Make all advertisement only about your platform.

• Attack politics are a ridiculous strategy that does nothing what so ever for the people.  Ban it.  Make it so that you can only tell the people what YOU are going to do for them.  Nothing else should be tolerated.  (Nice Hair Though)

 

4.  Severely limit the money flow in campaigns.

• Force candidates back to the stump, and back to the pavement.  Get them out, meeting the people.  One at a time. Door to door.  Massively unbalanced cash advantage for establishment party candidates hurts the people.  This leads to:

 

5.  Severely limit or eliminate all pensions for elected public service.

• This will push out the establishment lifetime political class, and bring in passionate real people into the equation.  It disgusts me that an 8 year term MP gets a 108k a year pension.  Disgusting.  This leads to:

 

6.  Establish a one term, non consecutive term limit.

• Again, it is the career politicians that are ruling the roost in all western governments.  No term limits, and unlimited money in campaigns establishes nothing less than intergenerational money laundering mafia operations.  It has to end.  This leads to:

 

7.  Mandatory sociopathy and psychopathy testing for all elected positions.

• Let's get some people with actual moral compasses in power, eh?  I have had enough of warmongers, and pork barrel spending kleptocrats posing as public servants.  And finally, this leads to:

 

8.  Limit government spending

• No matter how good the intentions, there are going to be those elected that look as the public coffers as theirs, or as a money laundering slush fund.  Get rid of almost all of it, and the stakes in their sickening game shrink.  Give the money back to the people where it belongs.  Take it out of the hands of these professional, and mildly competing money laundering mafias posing as public servants.

[riffraff]

2 hours ago, Undrafted said:

I think you're only half-correct.  What you haven't taken into account is the fact that the definition of where the centre is and who a moderate is has changed over the last few years.  Today's "centre" is more on the right and a "moderate conservative" is what used to be a hard-right conservative; what used to be a centrist position is now considered to be on the left. 

 

Myself, I used to be considered centre-right (as a former "Red Tory" Progressive Conservative voter).  These days, people would consider my views to be "hard left" as a "social progressive" even though my views themselves have not changed very much.  I mean, just look at how Conservative voters viewed Michael Chong: he and his supporters were lambasted for being "fake conservatives" (never mind the many racists in the party who simply didn't like the fact he wasn't 100% white).  For me personally, that was the last straw when it came to the Conservative Party--it was clear that people like me were no longer welcome because I'm a "fake conservative".

 

IMO, all this lies at the feet of today's conservatives.  It started with the introduction of "wedge politics" by the US Republicans of the 1980s, which in turn was embraced by conservative political parties across the Western world, including Harper's Conservatives.  And now the wedge has been driven so deep after all these years of it, that we have the divided society we have now.  That wedge has dumbed down political discourse from being a nuanced discussion of issues to blind cheerleading for one's party, especially on the conservative side.

 

I'm also from the generation that used to be taught: "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the government."  I used to honestly believe in that but I don't anymore.  The notion that there's no one worthy of voting for has never been more true than it is today.  These days, IF I vote, it's "negative voting" whereupon I'm voting to keep someone unpalatable out of office and the irony isn't lost on me that in the last federal and provincial elections, I voted against so-called 'conservative' parties.

Right on right on!

[Lancaster]

I wish for a society that everyone just leave each other alone.  

Everyone allowed to do whatever they want, unless it damages society or harms others.  Aid and help for others should be encouraged, but optional.... like tax breaks for donations, but less government/bureaucracy involved.  

A basic, but sufficient care for all.... with those with the means are allowed to pay a little more for help if needed. 

 

[-AJ-]

It seems like the pendulum is just swinging more and more wildly, creating more and more extreme ends, but maybe it's just the media blowing it up to be bigger than it is. I align pretty well with conservative views, but if I label myself as a conservative, I risk also being slotted into the generalized "Trump-loving, homophobic racist" group, hence why I hesitate to label myself really clearly when asked.

 

I'm pretty sure this is the case with most people and there's a lot more complexity to their beliefs than we might be led to believe on both sides. I suspect we just see the dramatic vocal extremists on both sides and others that are more centrist or nuanced in their positions don't get the limelight because frankly, they probably don't want it.

[The Lock]

10 hours ago, logic said:

The extreme right has been created by the radical left, every day I thank god Killary didn't win

 

Look at the massive conservative wave taking place all over the world, people are sick and tired of this PC society BS. Where if you disagree you're labelled a bigot, nazi, racist, islamaphobe ect ect

 

The Only reason the most of the media media is anti Trump is because they're all owned by Liberals/Democrats..

 

Its okay to be Hollywood pedophile but not to support trump these days lmao

I don't care if people are left or right. The real problems happen with the punches that get thrown by both sides. Nothing gets done because people are too busy throwing punches. It's unfortunately one of the underlying issues with democracy really.

 

People need to get their sticks out of there arses and stop being insecure that their own beliefs won't get heard. It takes a much stronger person to be able to listen to the other side than it does to claim that anyone who "doesn't support Trump" is in the wrong. There will always be two sides to things and neither side is going to be 100% right or wrong.

Edited July 31, 2018 by The Lock

[BowtieCanuck]

It's been hilarious to read this thread and see some truly moronic statements. I'm not saying its all coming from one side or the other.

Anyways, neither side is really to blame for our current political radicalism, social media is if anything. Before social media, those on the extremes of political ideology never had a soapbox of any kind to push their agendas and now they've got the worlds biggest soapbox to do it from. The problem with social media as well is that WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE take what is said on it at face value, not taking the time to actually look into what is being said and finding out what is actually factually accurate.

Trump is terrible, he's a man who once fought to take his nephews inheritance from him because he believed his brother who died from alcoholism didn't deserve it. He's shown time and time again to lie, be out for HIS best interests and actively looking to suppress minorities and women and its baffling anyone defends him. Don't get me wrong, Hilary wouldn't have been an amazing president but she wouldn't be actively pushing the country into the crapper.

[nuckin_futz]

2 hours ago, BowtieCanuck said:

It's been hilarious to read this thread and see some truly moronic statements. I'm not saying its all coming from one side or the other.

Anyways, neither side is really to blame for our current political radicalism, social media is if anything. Before social media, those on the extremes of political ideology never had a soapbox of any kind to push their agendas and now they've got the worlds biggest soapbox to do it from. The problem with social media as well is that WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE take what is said on it at face value, not taking the time to actually look into what is being said and finding out what is actually factually accurate.

Trump is terrible, he's a man who once fought to take his nephews inheritance from him because he believed his brother who died from alcoholism didn't deserve it. He's shown time and time again to lie, be out for HIS best interests and actively looking to suppress minorities and women and its baffling anyone defends him. Don't get me wrong, Hilary wouldn't have been an amazing president but she wouldn't be actively pushing the country into the crapper.

Hell of a lot of truth to this post. Go back 25 years ago. Where did people get their news from? Mainly from the 6 o'clock news and newspapers (plus a bit from talk radio). You had three main networks who just reported straight news. They didn't have to cater to anyone biases because there was little other choice. Same with newspapers, just reporting straight news the only biases were found on the editorial pages.

 

Fast forward to today. Newspapers are dead and way fewer people consume the 6 o'clock news. Due to the internet being everywhere people can pick and choose where they get their news. Anyone can create a site and call it news and not only slather it with heavy bias, but they can simply publish bulls**t masked as news. The networks and cable news outlets almost have to cater to a certain bias simply to attract a loyal audience to survive. Whipping minions into a frenzy and tossing them verbal red meat is good for business.

 

I used to say the best thing about the internet is it gives everyone a voice. Now I think the worst thing about the internet is that it gives everyone a voice.

[xereau]

8 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

Hell of a lot of truth to this post. Go back 25 years ago. Where did people get their news from? Mainly from the 6 o'clock news and newspapers (plus a bit from talk radio). You had three main networks who just reported straight news. They didn't have to cater to anyone biases because there was little other choice. Same with newspapers, just reporting straight news the only biases were found on the editorial pages.

 

Fast forward to today. Newspapers are dead and way fewer people consume the 6 o'clock news. Due to the internet being everywhere people can pick and choose where they get their news. Anyone can create a site and call it news and not only slather it with heavy bias, but they can simply publish bulls**t masked as news. The networks and cable news outlets almost have to cater to a certain bias simply to attract a loyal audience to survive. Whipping minions into a frenzy and tossing them verbal red meat is good for business.

 

I used to say the best thing about the internet is it gives everyone a voice. Now I think the worst thing about the internet is that it gives everyone a voice.

The media has always been a fifth column rather than the fourth estate.  Molding, shaping the minds of the people for the social engineers.  I think that now everyone is just now realizing this.

[Alflives]

11 hours ago, BowtieCanuck said:

It's been hilarious to read this thread and see some truly moronic statements. I'm not saying its all coming from one side or the other.

Anyways, neither side is really to blame for our current political radicalism, social media is if anything. Before social media, those on the extremes of political ideology never had a soapbox of any kind to push their agendas and now they've got the worlds biggest soapbox to do it from. The problem with social media as well is that WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE take what is said on it at face value, not taking the time to actually look into what is being said and finding out what is actually factually accurate.

Trump is terrible, he's a man who once fought to take his nephews inheritance from him because he believed his brother who died from alcoholism didn't deserve it. He's shown time and time again to lie, be out for HIS best interests and actively looking to suppress minorities and women and its baffling anyone defends him. Don't get me wrong, Hilary wouldn't have been an amazing president but she wouldn't be actively pushing the country into the crapper.

True center, even left, parties are disappearing because voters no longer want to see their hard earned money paid to government in higher taxes simply to go to waste on socialist ideas.  People want to feel safe in their homes, and in their communities.  

[Lockout Casualty]

12 hours ago, The Lock said:

I don't care if people are left or right. The real problems happen with the punches that get thrown by both sides. Nothing gets done because people are too busy throwing punches. It's unfortunately one of the underlying issues with democracy really.

 

People need to get their sticks out of there arses and stop being insecure that their own beliefs won't get heard. It takes a much stronger person to be able to listen to the other side than it does to claim that anyone who "doesn't support Trump" is in the wrong. There will always be two sides to things and neither side is going to be 100% right or wrong.

Why not? Women's rights. LGBTQ rights. Slavery. Counting black people as 3/5 of a person. Universal healthcare. Free primary and secondary education. Environmental protections. And so on and so forth.

 

Incidentally, the right has a pretty bad track record when it comes to many of the aforementioned issues. Also, recessions. 

 

And why is it constantly repeated that nobody listens to the other side? I, and I'm sure many others, have heard the other side, and determined that a large portion of that side's take on issues is, to put it bluntly, stupid. These issues aren't new. They've been debated for decades by all generations. 

 

As for the thread in general, I'm curious why centrism is supposed to be accepted as somehow the preferred position. One can be a centrist for all the wrong reasons, and many are. Likewise, one can be on the left and able to defend his positions rationally. I am firmly planted on the left by the views I hold; I don't hold certain views because they're considered left.

 

It also always bears repeating that the more educated one is, the more liberal one is likely to be. I'm sure being nicer to Trump would produce fruitful discussion /s.

[Rob_Zepp]

1 hour ago, Lockout Casualty said:

It also always bears repeating that the more educated one is, the more liberal one is likely to be.

That actually is a myth to some degree.   

 

Conservatives Are Dumber, and Smarter, Than Liberals

 

Conservatives Are Dumber, and Smarter, Than Liberals

Here's a more muddied red and blue picture of IQ.

Posted Sep 26, 2008

Democrats are fond of declaring that those who vote Republican are on the shorter end of the bus. One line of argument goes that Grand Old Partiers are just not bright enough to figure out what's best for the nation, or even themselves. Another insinuates that they lack the faculties to deal with nuanced issues and therefore hold fast to absolutes: ALL fetuses are full people; ALL taxes go to gay crack-addicted single moms on welfare. Indeed, some studies have supported such a simple correlation between political views and intelligence, but new research soon to be published in the journal Personalityand Individual Differences paints a more muddied—and interesting—red and blue picture of IQ.

 

Sociologist Markus Kemmelmeier compared college students' self-professed political views to their SAT and ACT scores (which are imperfect but useful measures of cognitive ability). First, he did find a general trend that social conservatives (those who wanted to ban abortion and gay marriage) weren't as gifted as students with a more progressive take on gender roles. But he found the exact opposite pattern with anti-regulation attitudes: The conservatives/libertarians (yay guns, boo taxes) appeared to be smarter than their commie compatriots. Kemmelmeier found this crossover "particularly surprising" and emailed me, "It highlights (yet again) that ‘conservatism' is not necessarily a coherent construct, but that you have to distinguish at minimum social conservatism and economic conservatism (libertarianism). If you think about it, Jerry Falwell and Milton Freedman are worlds apart."

 

Kemmelmeier found another pattern in his data, one supporting the previously-suggested idea that holding unpopular political views demands more cognitive resources ("context theory"). Those with the strongest beliefs, either way-red or way-blue, are smarter than the wishy-washy centrists too confused to stake their own ground. (All of these findings only applied to verbal intelligence. Math skills had no correlation with conservatism.) "I expected to find in some ways more of the same-old, that primarily more liberal views are linked to higher ability levels," Kemmelmeier says. "But, boy, this would be very wrong—at least as a general conclusion."

 

For his next study, Kemmelmeier got away from surveying elitist college kids. He used intelligence data drawn from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, statistics on the 2004 state-by-state proportions of Democratic lawmakers, and voter turnout rates. States that had higher IQ's also voted more Democrats into office—but only if political involvement was high. In states with low voter turnout, high IQ was correlated with having more Republican lawmakers. What does it all mean? Theorize at will. According to Kemmelmeier, "WHY political involvement moderates the direction of the link between conservatism/liberalism is something that needs to be explored more in the future."

 

Neither of the studies answer whether cognitive ability influences political orientation, or vice versa, or whether a third factor influences them both. Kemmelmeier notes that the first option makes more sense than the second, given that intelligence is more dependent upon genes than is political orientation. But of course voting for an incompetent president can have the effect of making you FEEL so much smarter, if simply by comparison.

[Lockout Casualty]

Spoiler

 

I said more educated, not smarter. 

Edited July 31, 2018 by Lockout Casualty

[Rob_Zepp]

6 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I said more educated, not smarter. 

Even that is a myth to a degree.   In terms of more liberal arts, law and some sciences - yes.   In terms of many sciences, engineering, medicine - no.