Alexandria Occasional-Cortex and the "Green New Deal".

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Any more words you want to put in my mouth there Jack? No such assumption on my part and I would appreciate you not telling me what my assumptions are.

There are extremists on the right and the left. The big difference is who is calling the shots in the nominally right party vs the nominally left party. The extremists on the left are on the fringes. Getting a lot of unjustified media attention but not in any positions of real influence.

[Calandale]

The precedent can be true, without disagreeing that the political stance, across the board, has moved
quite far to the right. There's a lot of room between even the fringes of the electable party members
and either Hitler or Stalin.

And yes, things were as far to the right as the Republicans before - in the pre-depression era, for some of
the policy goals. Indeed, in some ways, they're trying to reverse even Teddy Roosevelt's reforms.

[Jack]

Any more words you want to put in my mouth there Jack? No such assumption on my part and I would appreciate you not telling me what my assumptions are.

There are extremists on the right and the left. The big difference is who is calling the shots in the nominally right party vs the nominally left party. The extremists on the left are on the fringes. Getting a lot of unjustified media attention but not in any positions of real influence.

I didn't say, so basically, or, in other words. I was asked to image a situation where the left has compromised so much to be dragged to the right so far they're not even left anymore, and the right has moved so far right to be comparable to the Third Reich. I'm saying I think I have to assume certain things to imagine that. Since I was asked to imagine it, I wont assume it was even said that's what's happened.

[Jack]

Indeed, in some ways, they're trying to reverse even Teddy Roosevelt's reforms.

It's odd how climate change has made the environment a partisan issue when it hasn't been in the past. While generally the foundations environmental protection legislation are viewed as achievements of the right, it's always been viewed as a left priority and they truly were bipartisan pursuits. Maybe it just needs a different spin on it, to achieve the same results without saying the words climate change.

[Jack]

The precedent can be true, without disagreeing that the political stance, across the board, has moved
quite far to the right. There's a lot of room between even the fringes of the electable party members
and either Hitler or Stalin.

Thanks, Cal. It's also possible the precedent isn't true. There have been studies and publications which support the notion of the right is moving to the right faster than the left is moving to the left, but also some which conclude the opposite is true and the left are moving faster left. It's probably safer to say polarization is occurring on both sides. Wouldn't attempt to explain why.

[Calandale]

Indeed, in some ways, they're trying to reverse even Teddy Roosevelt's reforms.

It's odd how climate change has made the environment a partisan issue when it hasn't been in the past. While generally the foundations environmental protection legislation are viewed as achievements of the right, it's always been viewed as a left priority and they truly were bipartisan pursuits. Maybe it just needs a different spin on it, to achieve the same results without saying the words climate change.

Prior to climate change being a major concern, Reagan's policy stances were anti-environment.

It's the Reagan revolution (and the prior conservative movement) which changed things so much.
The climate debate is more a symptom.

[Calandale]

The precedent can be true, without disagreeing that the political stance, across the board, has moved
quite far to the right. There's a lot of room between even the fringes of the electable party members
and either Hitler or Stalin.

Thanks, Cal. It's also possible the precedent isn't true. There have been studies and publications which support the notion of the right is moving to the right faster than the left is moving to the left, but also some which conclude the opposite is true and the left are moving faster left. It's probably safer to say polarization is occurring on both sides. Wouldn't attempt to explain why.

Eh? The country clearly shifted hard right with Reagan. Clinton took the Dems far in that direction.
Obama's rhetoric (if not his beliefs) were probably a shade to the right of Clinton. BUT, I'd still say that
the heart of both parties is still within a fairly narrow band - one in which fair voting by citizens should
elect the office holders, for example (notwithstanding some of the rhetoric and actions).

If we look at the very recent stances of the Dems, a good proportion are returning to espouse stances
they haven't been able to since the early 80's however - and doing so with rhetoric they couldn't use
even then.

So, for my lifespan at least, we're seeing one party returning where it started, and the other
fairly far into territory which it hasn't been in since we became a global power.

[odeon]

The real conspiracy theory behind her is she's a plant. That's doubtfully true, but she's still probably the most divisive and destructive force in the democrat party. It seems to the benefit of the republicans to give her a lot of attention.

Nah. She represents an entirely new generation that (hopefully) will change the Democrats.

[odeon]

There's a problem with compromise.

You can either dig your heels in or you can meet the other side halfway in order to get stuff done.

Imagine a situation where you have a nominally right-wing party and a nominally left-wing party. The left-wing part keeps on compromising and moving closer to the centre. The right-wing party responds by.... moving further and further to the right.

After a while the compromises of the left have actually dragged it so far to the right that it has gone way past the centre and is now further to the right than the right-wing party was when they got started. The right-wing party, on the other hand, has kept moving so far to the right that the rest of the world is starting to draw comparisons with the Third Reich.

The left-wing party is now in a situation where anyone who actually gives a fuck about working people, and wants billionaires to pay some tax, and who doesn't want to destroy the planet in pursuit of profits.... starts to look like an extremist even by the standards of the formerly left-wing party. And then when they start to finally dig their heels in over the more extreme measures that the far-right wants to implement.... they get accused of not wanting to compromise any more.

Some of this is happening in Sweden.

[Jack]

The precedent can be true, without disagreeing that the political stance, across the board, has moved
quite far to the right. There's a lot of room between even the fringes of the electable party members
and either Hitler or Stalin.

Thanks, Cal. It's also possible the precedent isn't true. There have been studies and publications which support the notion of the right is moving to the right faster than the left is moving to the left, but also some which conclude the opposite is true and the left are moving faster left. It's probably safer to say polarization is occurring on both sides. Wouldn't attempt to explain why.

Eh? The country clearly shifted hard right with Reagan. Clinton took the Dems far in that direction.
Obama's rhetoric (if not his beliefs) were probably a shade to the right of Clinton. BUT, I'd still say that
the heart of both parties is still within a fairly narrow band - one in which fair voting by citizens should
elect the office holders, for example (notwithstanding some of the rhetoric and actions).

If we look at the very recent stances of the Dems, a good proportion are returning to espouse stances
they haven't been able to since the early 80's however - and doing so with rhetoric they couldn't use
even then.

So, for my lifespan at least, we're seeing one party returning where it started, and the other
fairly far into territory which it hasn't been in since we became a global power.

It may only be a matter of perception, then. Tend to view the left as more successful in achieving goals, because the left is a position which allows more room for political priorities to change as society and the needs of the people change, while the priorities of the right are more fixed and necessary in order to actualize the priorities of the left. Agree with the majority falling into a centrist band, but that's also only my perception of what other people think. The best study I was referencing before was only a ten year study.

[Jack]

The real conspiracy theory behind her is she's a plant. That's doubtfully true, but she's still probably the most divisive and destructive force in the democrat party. It seems to the benefit of the republicans to give her a lot of attention.

Nah. She represents an entirely new generation that (hopefully) will change the Democrats.

If they don't change, then they'll end up on her shit list of all the moderate democrats she's threatened to have unseated for not voting the way she wans them to. As for her generation, have long felt bad for the millennials, reaching adulthood in a time when the economy just didn't give them a chance. The way the appear to grasp at any outrage has made them seem a generation desperately needing a cause. If the environment is to be their cause, then good.

[odeon]

The real conspiracy theory behind her is she's a plant. That's doubtfully true, but she's still probably the most divisive and destructive force in the democrat party. It seems to the benefit of the republicans to give her a lot of attention.

Nah. She represents an entirely new generation that (hopefully) will change the Democrats.

If they don't change, then they'll end up on her shit list of all the moderate democrats she's threatened to have unseated for not voting the way she wans them to. As for her generation, have long felt bad for the millennials, reaching adulthood in a time when the economy just didn't give them a chance. The way the appear to grasp at any outrage has made them seem a generation desperately needing a cause. If the environment is to be their cause, then good.

It has to be their cause.

[Calandale]

Agree with the majority falling into a centrist band, but that's also only my perception of what other people think. The best study I was referencing before was only a ten year study.

But...the center moved. Many times. Centrist from pre-ACW meant things like supporting the Missouri Compromise.

In more modern times, the big shifts were those 'leftward' (progressive movement of the 1910's, New Deal, Great Society) and then a counter-reaction which started with Reagan. Reagan more or less killed off the Great Society changes,
but after-effects got rid of key New Deal provisions (like Glass-Steagall) and even earlier anti-trust rules.
Ideologically, there seems a drive mainly from the modern right to return to the pre-progressive reforms, trying to get back to
the level of Gilded Age freedom from pesky anti-trust rules.

In some cases, there are good arguments that there has historically been excessive regulation - in the sense
that it impacts growth. The problem is, there are only imperfect solutions ever, and both sides will put on
rosy shades toward change in their own direction. In the case of much of the 'unneeded' regulations, the
only empirical evidence we have of operations without them is frightening. And the slow relaxation has helped
create a wage-imbalance, in conjunction with the assault on labor (treating it like a simple commodity).

The crux of the issue is that the foundation of our society is broken however. Concepts such as a strong
right to private property and valuing everything by the standards of Mammon predetermine that we will
end up with a conflict between what makes people happy and the societal system of worth. This is NOT
human nature - but it may be needed for progress.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Indeed, in some ways, they're trying to reverse even Teddy Roosevelt's reforms.

It's odd how climate change has made the environment a partisan issue when it hasn't been in the past. While generally the foundations environmental protection legislation are viewed as achievements of the right, it's always been viewed as a left priority and they truly were bipartisan pursuits. Maybe it just needs a different spin on it, to achieve the same results without saying the words climate change.

Considering the conservative right's attitude towards wealth and the preservation and consolidation of wealth, it doesn't seem odd to me at all.

Think of it this way. If I have a thousand tons of coal in my backyard and I dig up ten tons annually to sell, then I have two things to worry about. One is that there is a current market for my coal so that I can keep selling it for a decent amount of money.

The second thing I have to worry about is the value of my asset, particularly if my wealth is based on (for example) a share value for my coal mining company. See, the value of that thousand tons of coal still in the ground in my backyard is based on the perception of whether there will be a market for that coal moving forward. If society is moving towards renewable energy, or if society perceives that burning coal is a bad thing and that moving towards renewable energy is inevitable, then the value of my asset plummets. IF I can convince enough people that the science behind climate change is wrong and that the whole thing is some kind of leftist conspiracy, and if we build windmills then we're all going to get windmill cancer, and we're all going to keep burning coal regardless of what them stupid scientists and leftists say, then the value of my asset is much less affected.

This is already happening, of course. On a very wide scale.

And changing the name from "global warming" to "climate change" already didn't help. Another name change won't work either.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

There's a lot of room between even the fringes of the electable party members and either Hitler or Stalin.

The thing is that Hitler didn't rise to power on a platform of "let's go to war with everyone and gas all the Jews". Such a platform would have made him unelectable, even in Germany in the 1930s. Hitler rose to power on a platform of restoring the economy to its former strength (which he did), nationalism and white pride, and scapegoating ethnic minorities.

Is it surprising that people are drawing comparisons? No. Are those comparisons valid? Not really, except at a superficial level.

There are big differences between Trump and the 3rd Reich, of course. The 3rd Reich had way cooler uniforms.

We also live in an information age, and the US has a far more robust political system and constitution and tradition of freedom which people would not give up lightly.