Why are so many musicians politically left-leaning?

[geoffk]

Still don't 'get' the whole idea behind this topic. Most of the postings I've seen on here that advocate something political are libertarian/conservative. From John Lennon being a 'radical' to social security being 'in trouble' to condeming today's music in favor of stuff from 40 years ago. Lots of folks are so conservative they will only use old equipment! Where's all the left leaning folk here, if there is indeed some sort of trend among musicians?

[-]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

In other words, instead of record company execs picking who gets signed, the musicians pick them. Say Paul McCartney gets to pick a young guitarist or songwriter (or two) who will succeed him. Maybe he also gets to pick an old blues cat he admired that never received due credit for what he did.

 

Well, that kind of already happens, although it's obviously not the main way in which performers become famous.

 

There's nothing preventing famous musicians from endorsing less-famous musicians they like, and I'd venture to say it happens a lot. Woody Guthrie introduced Elizabeth Cotton and her song "Freight Train" to the world. It's funny you mentioned Paul McCartney, as the association with the Beatles and their Apple record label helped Badfinger get airplay back in the early '70s. In the '80s, Prince would rave about Joni Mitchell in interviews, so much that he ended up quoting "Help Me" in "The Ballad of Dorothy Parker"... I'm sure Prince's obsession with Joni Mitchell drove a number of his fans to check out her albums.

 

More recently, Dave Matthews has made a star out of Tim Reynolds, a guy whose music I've not heard but still a name I know through Dave's endorsement. And Burt Bacharach/Elvis Costello are household names among all demographics because of Mike Myers and a small little art film named "Austin Powers 2"... Quentin Tarantino introduced Jackie Chan to US audiences on the MTV Movie Awards a few years back...

 

OK, I'm getting off topic, but what I'm saying is that it *does* happen a lot... It's all about knowing the right people and being in the right place at the right time... Just like if it were a small socialist village.

 

The system you're describing sounds like the way royalty was picked long ago... It might be nice for a little while, but musicians being musicians, you almost *need* to throw people in from the outside to shake things up when the scene gets too predictable (kind of like what the Sex Pistols, the Ramones, and Nirvana did). Otherwise, you're creating the same kind of mentality that has relegated orchestral music to its current popularity amongst the general public: a stuffy, conservative, "you must learn from the masters and ONLY the masters", elitist POV...

 

 

This message has been edited by popmusic on 07-18-2001 at 04:57 PM

[dansouth]

Originally posted by Emile:

I find funny that in the US the two extremes are associated with religion in such a paradoxal way. I don't get the fact that Republicans (with their to each is own let us get rich or I'll sue you attitude) are posing as devout Christians which credo is lets help each others and that we are all brothers and sisters be it gays, whites, jews, single mothers, orphans, musicians, etc. Also let's build some more bombs while we are at it. There's the real love one and all teaching...

 

In general, conservatives want to limit the government's involvement in society and liberals want to increase the goverment's involvement. But there are two areas where these roles are reversed, i.e. conservatives want to get involved, and liberals want to leave these alone. These issues are:

 

(1) foreign policy/defense

(2) moral issues

[rumpelstiltskin.]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

In general, conservatives want to limit the government's involvement in society and liberals want to increase the goverment's involvement.

 

(2) moral issues

 

moral issues, which encompass most of everyday life (from smoking cigarettes to having sex to watching tv or listening to music to reading books, etc.), are what makes conservatives so disingenuous.

 

they talk about getting the government off your back, but they only mean financially. they're all about getting up in your grill.

[SFOracle]

Well this thread has covered enough ground that I can't really respond to any one comment, so instead I will just launch my own rambling thoughts out there and see what happens.

 

Why do musicians and artists tend to the left? I think it is probably because to be original or creative, you have to push the envelope and exploring the grey areas a bit. Art, to be good, must have an emotional appeal - it has to touch or move you. So music and other arts tend to derive their subject matter from things such as love, hate, sex, war, protest etc that have a strong emotional appeal. When you start to explore the grey areas of things like love, hate, sex, war, etc, you are almost certain to come into direct conflict with the goals of the social conservatives.

 

Art often highlights what is wrong with society and at least by inference, demands a solution. Art is often used as a form of protest. Liberals tend to think they can fix everything. They often underestimate the complexity of problems and over estimate their ability to improve things. This is the "brave new world" complex that many liberals suffer from. Conservatives on the otherhand tend to be pessimistic about our ability to improve anything. Don't help a poor person, you will just make him dependent.

 

As a Canadian citizen and US resident, I am not able to vote, however I follow politics very closely in both countries. In Canada, I considered myself a moderate conservative. My views have not changed much, but now in the US I consider myself to be a moderate liberal. I don't know how I would vote if I were able to. The 2 party system does not provide an avenue for a diversity of views. The democrates are too beholden to organized labor and many tend to be too elitist for my liking (how else do you describe people who champion the failing public school system while sending their children to private schools). I find the Republicans too attached to the social conservative agenda. Bush really fooled me. He campaigned as a moderate and if I were able to vote I probably would have held my nose and voted for him. Once in office, he turns out to be somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun. I didn't like Al Gore because I thought he was an opportunistic SOB who would do anything to get elected. Might have been better off with an honest oppotunist than a charming lier.

 

 

I think a lot of the left/right split in the arts has a lot to do with artistic expression and censorship. The religious right seems to be the source of a lot of the momentum for "decency" standards in art. I am a Christian, (if I can dare touch on religion in this thread) and I share at least some common ground with the religious right, but not the hate and intolerance. We are all sinners, and one person's sin is no worse than another's. Hating sinners is about as anti-Christian as you can get. I am also a big fan of the secular state. You can not legislate morals or religion. If the Church gets entrenched political power, the only result can be corruption. I also think that we have to be very carefull about suppressing expression - even if we don't agree with what is being expressed. Unless something is clearly harmful or hateful, it should not be censored. Censorship is anti-art. But artists also need to realize that if you are going to be controversial, you at least need to be good. All criticism is not censorship; all expression is not artistic. If something is offensive to me, I can express my opinion that it is crap.

 

As a parent - it is my responsibility, not the states, to monitor what media my children are exposed to. There are some things that are very creative (Southpark), but very offensive. I will not willingly expose my children to this, but if the see it, it will at least trigger some good healthy discussion on why I feel it is offensive and unsuitable for them to watch. Thankfully, at 2 1/2 and 2 months, my boys are a bit young for Southpark.

 

Don.

[rold]

Originally posted by SFOracle:

You can not legislate morals or religion.

Don.

 

I wish China would agree with that statement... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/frown.gif

[rold]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

In general, conservatives want to limit the government's involvement in society and liberals want to increase the goverment's involvement.

 

It's wierd - you'd figure the opposite to be true, by definition.

 

 

 

This message has been edited by rold on 07-18-2001 at 10:52 PM

[Chip McDonald]

Interesting. This will be limited to our U.S. contingent I assume....?

 

It would be soooo easy to post some things that would blow this thread into the biggest message count in under a week....

 

Instead...

 

"Politics" is an illusion. You'll hear people yell and scream about it. I used to!

 

But I was a sucker.

 

The notion of being a "Republican" or "Democrat" was *supposed* to be a philosophical one. This is played up in the media; the ilk of Rush Limbaugh and now Bill O'Reilly keep it sustaining.

 

It's an *illusion*. It keeps us easily controllable. We argue and bicker with each other based on this ambiguous sides - sides that WE ALL KNOW DO NOT MEAN WHAT THEY USED TO MEAN!!!

 

*We all know *no one* in power is there for wholistically pure reasons - for *us*, representing *us*. WE ALL KNOW THAT, RIGHT??????

 

So why are we pretending it matters? IT DOESN'T. Our last freaking "election" demonstrates this.

 

We still jabber jabber, democrats do this Republicans do that.

 

Meanwhile, WE ALL AGREE THINGS ARE SCREWED UP, RIGHT????

 

 

Two points:

 

1) Political affiliation either means you're a sucker and don't mind being typecasted, *or* you have an agenda: witness Republican party boss Mary Matalin - WHO IS LITERALLY IN BED with Democratic strategist James Carville. It's a *business* to them; they no doubt laugh at the whole thing. They can be married to each other because they have an understanding that the phenomena of "politics" in our modern society *is completely removed from philosophy*, it is about PURE SOCIAL MANIPULATION.

 

2) The New World Order is here. "They" won. It matters less and less what our "government" chooses to do, it's more controlled top down globally than it is by "us". It has it's good points, it has a lot of bad points. Regardless, pressures from outside the country have as much or more influence on what goes on here than "we" do.

 

Because of those two notions, the resultant behaviour should be to be *cognizant* of this and act accordingly. Don't buy into the tripe of either "side". It's a game meant to blind the populace to real concerns, keep us happy while we consume blandness. It's *managing our democracy*. Anyone who has been close to politics knows it's as disgusting ethically as anything in the music business if not worse, and the populace should act with disdain towards *any side* that tries to manipulate you one way or another.

 

I'm conservative in some respects, liberal in others. That's the way most *human* Americans are. I *will not* be categorized, I *will not* play that game. I *will not* jump up and down and clap for either bozo on either side, because *I know* neither have honest intentions. I am not a sheep to be herded into a political corral.

 

When the general populace really believes that, things will change. I don't know if that will ever happen; "they" have too much control over the media, over everything, and we now have a generation that has grown up on that influence.

 

The notion that you *have* to be this side or that side is an ARTIFICIAL CONCEPT. *No one* can accurately define what determines either side now, *now one* - BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THEY WANT IT. That ambiguousness makes the game playable; that allows people *under the influence of other powers* play the game, and those without that influence kept out.

 

So - don't declare you're one side or another - it doesn't mean anything anymore. *CONSIDER YOUR COMPANY IF YOU DO*. In other words - I'm not going to say I'm a Republican because that puts me in company with some wacky people, people I don't share beliefs with. I'm not going to say I'm a democrat - FOR THE SAME REASONS. So why should *you* throw yourself into the company of riff raff? Note that whenever there has been a moral or ethical problem in politics, their own party never censures their own people - DESPITE HAVING CLAIM TO REPRESENT A PHILOSOPHICAL POINT OF VIEW.

 

Are you a Republican? The party of Dick Nixon, Ollie North, Rockin' Ted Nugent, rednecks who worship the confederate flag, militants who worship guns? Are you a Democrat, the party of Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Michael Jackson, bozos who worship crystals or aliens, bureaucracy?

 

Note I didn't say "spending, tax cuts, abortion, legalization, globalization, environment" - because NONE OF THEM HAVE ANY CONSISTENT BELIEF IN THE ISSUES USED TO DIVIDE THE NATION POLTICALLY. *None* of them.

Soundbites LIE. Examine their record and history; they're *all* hypocrites!

 

BOTH sides share equal amounts of stupidity, corruption and most importantly graft, in addition to displaying *no philosophical preferances in reality* (if you actually examine their voting records and other sources in depth). Original intent doesn't matter! What matters is what each side *stands for NOW*. WHY DOES ANYONE WANT TO BE AFFILIATED WITH EITHER "PARTY"?

 

Why do *you* want to be affiliated with either party????

 

------------------

New and Improved Music Soon: http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[alphajerk]

i dont.

 

the illuminati is alive and well.

 

pretty much the reason i refuse to vote every election [except the last out of fearing pure evil, i guess evil will prevail] bush was put in place not by voters but by the illumanati. something very strange was up that day. 2 million votes were not counted. credit card companies exchange millions in transactions accurate to the $0.01 every day if not every hour.

[dansouth]

The Seven Habits Of Highly Effective Conservatives

 

Conservative habit # 1: Oversimplify complex issues. The "Just Say No" compaign is a good illustration of this. Also, the War On Drugs (drugs are a bigger problem than ever) and the War On Crime. We spent twenty-five years building new prisons, and only in the last year or two has crime diminished. See how well this works!

 

Extra credit: When speaking in public or debating with a liberal, i.e. someone who wastes time researching issues, confound all attempts at rational thought by repeating approved mantras like "Read my lips!" or "There you go again!"

 

Warning: Lauguage is the tool of the mind. Paralyze the mind by bastardizing language as much as possible. Come up with meaningless slogans to interrupt the though process. "Whip Inflation Now!" or "Better Dead Than Red." Misuse grammar and vocabulary to keep everyone guessing. You have a competitive advantage in this area if your middle initial is "W".

 

Conservative habit # 2. Talk out of both sides of your mouth, because your supporters take a hard line on every issue, and there's no room for compromise.

 

Conservative habit # 3. Give lip service to rights and individual freedoms, but never trust individuals to make important decisions. Drugs, pornography, and abortion are way too scary for the general public to manage without government intervention.

 

Conservative habit # 4a. Turn your back on profitable issues.

Conservative habit # 4b. Make a big stink it if doesn't pay well.

 

Give billions in tax breaks to corporations (and millions to sports franchises), support tobacco and gun companies in their efforts to capitalize on death, but if a woman receives a few hundred dollars a month to feed her children, brand her Public Enemy # 1. Make things as difficult as possible for labor unions and immigrants.

 

Conservative habit # 5. Meddle in foreign affairs as much as possible. The less you know about the culture, the more you can help. Note: Selling arms is usually the fastest, simplest approach, and we like fast, simple solutions to problems.

 

Reminder: Keep habit 5 in mind should any foreign children end up in the country unintentionally.

 

Conservative habit # 6. Get personal. Issues, Schmissues! Nobody wants to talk about issues. Talk about character. If your opponent has ever shown poor judgment with women or alcohol, discuss this incessantly. Remind everyone daily that the character of your opponent horrifyingly inadequate. As a natural byproduct, the public will infer that YOUR character is impeccible, even though you've enjoyed a few "youthful indescretions" yourself. Don't worry - liberals never raise the character issue. This is a boxing match where you get to throw all of the punches.

 

Conservative habit # 7. Sleep with as many women as you can, but if you see someone who openly enjoys this type of behavior, i.e. a "LIBERAL", impeach them immediately, and be sure to discuss the lurid details of your opponent's affairs every time you see a television camera. See also: Habit 6.

[Tedster]

Originally posted by Anderton:

Hey! Maybe there are more left-leaning musicians because there's a greater percentage of left-handers among musicians than in the general population. Come to think of it, there's a greater percentage of left-handers among prisoners than the general population, too...

 

Do you happen to be a southpaw, Craig?

[rold]

Chip, Dan:

 

Great rants!

 

One question:

 

Are illegal drugs really the problem or is it their illegality?

 

Canada has a great approach to these kinds of issues:

Make EVERYTHING illegal, prosecute as necessary.

 

In Canada, it is illegal to posess any electronic components which together can form a transmitter. You are a criminal if you posess a radio, television set, and/or an alarm clock radio, among other things.

 

In BC, you are a criminal if you plug in any electrical device without a permit, or not mow your lawn. Both of these can land you in jail.

 

In North America, you may market and use a drug that can cause widespread permament significant brain damage (prozac, tobacco), and cause hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations per year (aspirin, tobacco), but you can expect to serve time in jail for smoking a relatively harmless substance such as pot.

 

Our political systems do not work; our elected "leaders" are corporate hand puppets.

[-]

Originally posted by Anderton:

<< I've often wondered why many folks DON'T like to openly state who they are for or what "side" they are on...but prefer to "straddle the fence" or be vague about it.>>

 

That's because the labels are meaningless. Take environmentalism, for example. You'd think that a "conservative" would be for conservation. Having trees in the forest is kind of like having money in the bank, right? And that liberals, who profess to care about the poor, would be in favor of tearing forests down if it supplies more jobs and keeps the unions going. But that's not the way it is.

 

The other thing which really hasn't been addressed yet is that, when it comes to politicians or ideologies, you have both a "left" and "right" wing, but you also have an "authoritarian" and "libertarian" view of either wing. (The best way I can describe it is as a grid, like the political leaning test over at http://www.politicalcompass.org ...)

 

It would explain like someone like Tipper could be somewhat central/left wing yet still want warning labels on explicit lyrics.

 

The funny thing is, politicians will resist labels just as much as everyone in this forum generally has, but will gladly align themselves with a buzzword if it's advantageous to do so. For example, among younger-thinking people, the word "conservative" is somewhat of a dirty word because it conjures up images of old, intolerant, rich guys... But it's OK to use the word "libertarian" because it has a hipper connotation. (Granted, "conservative" and "libertarian" are not the same thing, but they do share many similar views.) There's so much stigma attached to the word "conservative" that Bush had to put the word "compassionate" in front it in order to differentiate himself, just like Clinton had to put the word "new" in front of "Democrat" in order to get elected.

 

Getting back to my original point, someone could be "left" or "right" in ideology yet have either "authoritarian" or "libertarian" solutions to reach their left or right ideologies. But "authoritarian" is another one of those dirty words... Can you imagine someone running for office in the US and saying, "Yes, I'm a strong authoritarian on the issue of gun control"?!?!?

 

 

This message has been edited by popmusic on 07-19-2001 at 08:16 AM

[-]

To get back on topic, I'm still interested in hearing why (or why not) you think musicians generally have a left-leaning political philosophy... It was my mistake to use the word "Republican" in my original post, as "Republican" doesn't always mean right-wing, and "Democrat" doesn't always mean left-wing.

 

And Chip? Sure -- let's not limit the topic to the U.S.... I'd like to focus more on the left and right ideologies rather than actual political parties or politicians, as I think the left-leaning/musician connection thing is worldwide...

 

I was reading a review last night about the Welsh band Super Furry Animals and how that their lyrics, in the words of the article, are "left-wing activist". I was thinking, "Geez, you never see a music review which says that the band or lyrics are "right-wing activist"... Is it because, as someone once said, "bad politics make great lyrics"? ("Imagine all the people...")

[Chip McDonald]

Yes, these are not exclusively U.S. ideaologies. It's just that I think it's probably been perfected as a brain-washing procedure here.

 

The bottom line of my obfuscated rant is that *we shouldn't be debating *each other** on percieved Republican/Democrat issues*. Instead we should be debating how things are corrupted to the point of insolvency, how *that's* going to be fixed. That everyone should consider a Politician as a snake in the grass, regardless of party affiliation. With that as the *common* mindset, better things may occur. It is a waste of time and energy to get caught up in the Republican/democrat taking sides process.

 

 

Political affiliation provides those in power with a way to easily manipulate the aggregate. It's easier to predict the outcome and easier to manipulate that outcome accordingly. Throughout history "party affiliation", either through political means *or* religious, has been used by those in power to insure stability in their population.

 

An interesting question would be, what came first: religion or politics? Because in the historical perspective they both function almost similarly in action. One could surmise that somewhere along the line some bright philosopher, when presented with the problem of "how to make civilization prosper" could have thought either up, OR realized religion as a function of taking politics to an extreme (think about that).

 

Regardless, *we don't have to have party affiliatoin*, it doesn't serve a purpose. Bicameralism is a broken joke in the U.S. legistlature, based along party lines - it doesn't work. Theoretically we should have a flat potential party wise, but of course we don't - because the general populace doesn't believe it can happen.

 

So the root problem is the general populace's self-awareness for the need to get away from "republican/democrat" - or party affiliation at all. Vote for the person and what they stand for; that's the logical procedure as far as how to run things, isn't it?

 

------------------

New and Improved Music Soon: http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[rumpelstiltskin.]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

The bottom line of my obfuscated rant is that *we shouldn't be debating *each other** on percieved Republican/Democrat issues*. Instead we should be debating how things are corrupted to the point of insolvency, how *that's* going to be fixed.

 

excellently stated. that is an issue that i have been speaking to people about for three years now (speaking as in conversation, not public address). it's a surprisingly hard sell to convince people that politics doesn't work, is disgusting, and is contrary to progress, freedom, taking care of people, virtue.

 

part of the problem is that when one advocates a new paradigm, the burden of proof is on him to prove that it is better in every way than the old system, not simply better in most ways. in other words, you can't just come up with a system to improve how we deal with poverty, you have to eradicate poverty with the new system, or people will tend to rely on inertia.

 

Bicameralism is a broken joke in the U.S. legistlature, based along party lines - it doesn't work.

 

yes and no. the theory of a bicameral legislature is such that one branch is more concerned with the long-term, with protection of rights, etc., and the other is more concerned with serving the will (or whim) of the public. in a lot of ways, it's designed not to work, depending on your point of view. it was designed to be slow and inefficient in order to keep the government from being overactive. i subscribe to that, and i'm glad we have some sort of buffer from unmitigated statism.

[dansouth]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

So the root problem is the general populace's self-awareness for the need to get away from "republican/democrat" - or party affiliation at all. Vote for the person and what they stand for; that's the logical procedure as far as how to run things, isn't it?

 

I agree, Chip, but it will never work. "Us vs. Them" is deeply ingrained in the human psyche. Street gangs are a perfect example of the spontaneous manifestaion of this concept. "Us vs. Them" is also easily exploited. Prime examples: Nazi Germany, internment of Japanese Americans, the Cold War, Israel.

 

Besides, the two party system fills an important role. It allows people to make decisions without thinking.

 

"Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is why so few men endeavor to do it." - Henry Ford

[Lee Flier]

Just wanted to give a big thumbs up to Chip and Dan for your rants on this thread, they both reflect my thoughts on the current political system exactly!

 

--Lee

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

...So the root problem is the general populace's self-awareness for the need to get away from "republican/democrat" - or party affiliation at all. Vote for the person and what they stand for; that's the logical procedure as far as how to run things, isn't it?

 

Theoretically...this might be a good way to approch the "who should I vote for question".

 

However, it won't solve the problem of the 2-party system, because no matter who you vote for, they are still very much attached to *their* party, and ultimately controlled by that party.

 

So,...just disregarding *the party* when voting for a person that belongs to that party...well...that's a bit naive, I think.

 

Both party platforms need to change, AND we need more than just two (Ross Perot doesn't count, and neither does Pat Buchanan),...or just do away with ANY party political system...but now that's being naive too.

 

There will be poltical parties for a long time to come...until some ET lands on this planet and we realize that the center of the universe doesn't revolve around us... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

So maybe the best thing is to reform the the existing two parties and add a couple more REAL choices.

[Botch.]

Originally posted by jtegan@tiac.net:

Winston Churchill [ I think ]

"if you are not liberal when you are young you have no

heart. If you are not conservative when you get older

you have no brain"

 

Churchill was a deeply flawed human being who ended his career being politically rejected by the British people. I would suggest that physiologically, conservatism might be correlated to the diminishing of mental ability that goes along with getting older. So Churchill had it wrong. As you get older and your brain's ability to function decreases you get more conservative.

 

Well-l-l-l, that's one way of looking at it. As you get older some of us get wiser, and you get more conservative ;-) I was a lot more liberal when I was younger but as you get older, you realize the human race is flawed just like everything else, easy-access welfare will result in third-generation welfare families, free health care will run amok (when I lived in Grand Forks ND you learned to stay away from grocery stores on weekends; Sat & Sun the parking lots would fill up with tour buses, and hundreds of older Canadian folks would fill the stores. In the cashier's line, they would get 6 items out of their cart, pay for them out of one envelope, 6 more items, another envelope, etc until the cart was empty. They were buying groceries for their friends, and this happened every weekend. This is what "free" health care does to a country very similar to ours; no thanks!).

 

Several have pointed out that Republican leaders act liberal and vice-versa. Dubya's recent proposal to grant citizenship to 3 million illegal mexicans sounds very Democrat to me, just don't stand anywhere near the border if it comes to pass, Mexico will probably empty out!

[Guest]

Originally posted by botch@netutah.net:

Well-l-l-l, that's one way of looking at it. As you get older some of us get wiser, and you get more conservative ;-) I was a lot more liberal when I was younger but as you get older, you realize the human race is flawed just like everything else, easy-access welfare will result in third-generation welfare families, free health care will run amok (when I lived in Grand Forks ND you learned to stay away from grocery stores on weekends; Sat & Sun the parking lots would fill up with tour buses, and hundreds of older Canadian folks would fill the stores. In the cashier's line, they would get 6 items out of their cart, pay for them out of one envelope, 6 more items, another envelope, etc until the cart was empty. They were buying groceries for their friends, and this happened every weekend. This is what "free" health care does to a country very similar to ours; no thanks!).

 

 

You get wiser? That's why conservatives love welfare bashing and welfare cheats. If they didn't have em they'd have to invent them. You know how you keep inflation down? You raise the interest rates, it's slows business hiring down, people out of work have less money to spend and demand for products go down. The economic system is really managed on the backs of the poorest people. So it's good to have some welfare cheats, it's a great distraction. So easy to get indignant about some poor slob cheating welfare. That way, people don't think about tax breaks for the rich, subsidies for the tobacco companies, draconian drug laws that mean we have to build more prisons.

 

I mean, if people weren't so pissed off at those welfare cheats they might have to think about what building a missile defense system is about. Is it about protecting the American people or about pork rewarding campaign contributors? The Stealth bomber can be detected by cell phone networks, the Patriot missle never hit a target, and it's a good bet the billions they'll spend on missle defense could be easily defeated. There's good reason why business contributes to Republicans. It has less to do with ideology and all to do with pork.

 

This whole liberal versus conservative debate is framed to obscure how your tax money is going to be spent. Republicans want their businesses to be subsidized with tax money and yet they don't want to pay taxes. So let's take the pie and cut taxes by cutting services but not pork. No we need more pork. Let's build a helicopter that crashes, a Stealth bomber that can be seen by cellphones and a missle defense that won't really work. Let's subsidize tobacco. Let's emphasize the demand for oil products instead of conservation.

 

Did you know that the federal government works with the medical establishment to limit the amount of people they allow to become doctors to keep the salaries of doctors high? We aleady have a socialized medical system but it's regulated to reward insurance companies. Every person can get emergency medical care in the US. The cost is added to insurance payers premiums. The American medical system is already socialized (regulated) to the benefit of insurance companies and drug companies.

 

But how can we do this? How can we pull the wool over the people's eyes?

 

We do this by misframing the argument into simplistic ideological frameworks. We can do this by making it emotional. We'll put people out of work when we need to. We'll cut government services and give the richest people a tax break. Goodess, it's better to put poor slobs out of work than let the costsof our products get more expensive. The poorest least able people, and then when they're out of work we'll make their lives so miserable they'll turn to nefarious practices, then we can mold people's righteous indignation in such a way they'll ignore the complicated issues, the real fleecing of Americans. We'll call this manufactured indignation righteous and its cause liberalism and liberal policies. We'll call them wise even though they've been fooled, and they'll like the compliment. They'll believe it.

 

Joe

[Brian T]

So only having two parties sucks? Really?

 

Has anybody noticed the utter volatility of the leadership in countries that are fragmented into a large number of political parties? Look at those countries where there has been a remarkably frequent succesion of different governmental coalitions. Almost all have several prominent parties. And an attendant lower continuity of government, also with an attendant lack of accomplishment as a nation, relative to those countries with longer lived governments.

 

So let's see. The U.S. is undeniably the backbone of the global economy, has withstood all challenges militarily and monetarily since it's founding, and at 225 years of age with a completely uninterrupted government and Constitution, is one of the most stable and long lived free countries in history. Remember, even France had it's revolution for democracy after the U.S. and has been far less stable, as far as government, since.

 

So harsh criticism of a two party system flies in the face of reality, IMO. BTW, why do you think the Electoral College was structured the way it is? To promote the existence of a majority block for the purpose of enhanced stability. The very people who set the U.S.A. up envisioned that as a good thing. I think they were right. It's built for two main parties by design.

 

Regards,

Brian T

 

P.S. Go ahead and bash on the U.S. and it's government if you will. Just remember, if the U.S. tubes it, the whole world is going in the crapper in a number of ways, including but not limited to, finances and food.....two biggies.

[Chip McDonald]

(on the topic of representational government)

 

I'd like to make the point in that I differentiate between the effectiveness of voting from within the two party "system" and the notion of running an independent as being an almost academic difference.

 

The system is set up to reinforce itself in that voting in one guy that's "on the level" isn't going to fix things.

 

I used to really, really be into politics until I realized it's an impossible conuundrum. Our government is too monolithic, one vast hulk of corruption from the top down - or bottom up, whichever you prefer. As far as I'm concerned,

 

IT CAN'T BE FIXED.

 

 

It has to either fall apart (which I think is more possible than one might think), or the entire populace has to think completely differently about their relationship to "government".

 

 

The last presidential election was the last straw for me. If *that* didn't mobilize people into demanding something change, *NOTHING* is going to d it. *Nothing*.

 

It's my belief the entire populace has to become completely and totally cynical of the same process - so that it can completely be rendered null - and we can start over. That's nihilistic, but the only way IMO.

 

I was such a big "you've gotta get out and vote" bozo for so long. I'm now exactly the opposite. It doesn't matter. I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils, that perpetuates the system. Part of me is all for King George being in power - he's going to goof up big time eventually, so I hope it's in a relatively harmless but *BIG* way so that hopefully the Republican/democrat thing can get erased. The election system itself is totally useless now, we all know it and should act accordingly: don't argue about candidates, argue about what has to be done *independent* of party lines.

 

 

BECAUSE

 

If this becomes enough of a social meme - a self-replicating idea, a candidate will fall into place that will at least fall under the premise of trying to placate that point of view. Since no one really has a point of view anymore these days, we have choices that don't really mean much. If the populace were to get really, seriously angry about it - then we'd see candidates *having* to placate that anger.

 

So it comes down to *us*, not the candidates of either party. Make a joke in casual conversation about how pointless the two parties are, take every step to encourage the common social thought that *none of them have the answers*, but that something needs to be done. An atmosphere conducive to change has to be created before it will happen. Social engineering has to happen, not different but the same Democratic or Republican candidates.

 

------------------

New and Improved Music Soon: http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[b3wiz]

yawn....brittney spears is still the queen....and now it's beginning to make sense as to "why?". And Stalin's dream is becoming prophetic.

[dansouth]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

I've noticed on these forums that there is a more right-leaning or libertarian-leaning element who feel that the kind of people I've described above are a bunch of whining crybabies who just need to get a job and take responsibility for themselves.

 

I'm not sure I understand the correllation between political leanings and tolerance of whining crybabies.

 

Gen. H. Norman Schwartzkopf is a liberal, but I'll guarantee you that he has no tolerance for people who can't pull their own weight. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan, icon of late twentieth century conservatism, had a pathetic work ethic and often slept through important meetings. Reagan was quite possibly the biggest slacker to ever occupy the Oval Office.

 

How exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that intolerance of laziness is equivalent to "right-leaning" or "libertarian-leaning"?

[dansouth]

Originally posted by jtegan@tiac.net:

Winston Churchill [ I think ]

"if you are not liberal when you are young you have no

heart. If you are not conservative when you get older

you have no brain"

 

Churchill was a deeply flawed human being who ended his career being politically rejected by the British people. I would suggest that physiologically, conservatism might be correlated to the diminishing of mental ability that goes along with getting older. So Churchill had it wrong. As you get older and your brain's ability to function decreases you get more conservative.

 

Winston Churchill was obese, alcoholic, and rarely got out of bed before noon. He also wrote a veritable library of books, including the definitive text on European history, gave some of history's most eloquent and arousing speeches, and managed to keep Britain from buckling under the strain of the Blitz long enough to serve as the launching pad for the greatest invasion in military history.

 

In short, Churchill is the reason that the western world doesn't eat sauerkraut three times a day.

[Guest]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

Winston Churchill was obese, alcoholic, and rarely got out of bed before noon. He also wrote a veritable library of books, including the definitive text on European history, gave some of history's most eloquent and arousing speeches, and managed to keep Britain from buckling under the strain of the Blitz long enough to serve as the launching pad for the greatest invasion in military history.

 

In short, Churchill is the reason that the western world doesn't eat sauerkraut three times a day.

[dansouth]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Just wanted to give a big thumbs up to Chip and Dan for your rants on this thread, they both reflect my thoughts on the current political system exactly!

 

--Lee

 

Wow! Thanks, Lee! It was nothing, really. I just find conservatives to be unthinking, uncaring, soulless, greed-ridden robots hypnotized by the toxic propaganda of pandering, racist, sexist, elitist, unscrupulous, opporunistic, hypocritical AM radio provocateurs. Other than that, they're generally nice people. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

How exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that intolerance of laziness is equivalent to "right-leaning" or "libertarian-leaning"?

 

I didn't conclude that. It's just that I don't agree with their definition of "laziness". Not everyone who needs help is lazy. Not every musician who has great difficulty working at something other than music is a crybaby. It's really a case by case thing that can't be generalized. But it is convenient for hard-core libertarians and conservatives to think such people are all lazy or crybabies, because it cuts into THEIR profits.

 

I am a great believer in personal responsibility and throughout my life have been something of a poster child for it. But I still think people need to depend on others too - at some times more than others. And since communities and families have become so fragmented, a lot of people don't know where to turn for help and ongoing support. It sucks that they feel the only place to look is the government, but that doesn't in and of itself make them lazy.

 

--Lee

[dansouth]

I see you point, and I wish the government could help more people. I'd like to see them take care of the mentally ill so I don't have to step over them on my way to work every morning.

 

The biggest problem with government sponsored financial help is that there's always some greedy slumlord or other bastard who's willing to suck off all of the proceeds. HUD slumlords get huge government subsidies to run rat infested tenement apartment buildings. Insurance companies walk off with lion's share of the Medicare and Medicaid money. Most of the Superfund money went to pay the legal fees of polluting chemical companies. The government is good at appropriating funds for projects, but they're woefully bad at following up to ensure that the funds reach their intended recipients.

 

As for laziness, there's a big differnence between needing some short term help and neglecting to take care of oneself. Anyone can find themselves in a jam for reasons that are not of their own making - natural disaster, plant closing, unexpected pregnancy, etc. - and help should be avaialbe. But if the jam is cause by lack of planning or discipline or effort, then people who ARE working hard generally have a hard time with being asked to help out in those instances. It's difficult to spot the scammers, though, and that makes it difficult for those with legitimate needs to get assistance when it's needed.

 

I have a friend who has not worked in three years because of an injury sustained in an automobile accident. She is just now starting to get some help from Social Security. That's ridiculous, but it's the way it is, and I don't propose to know how to make it better.