Comment number one on Paper #64 poses a good thought. What is the difference between a socialist/communist and a liberal?
Liberal does not equal communism. The left has two sides (faces) to it. They disagree on government control in reality. Liberals actually believe in so much freedom that no government should actually be involved, hence allowing gay marriage, murder of infants, euthanasia, anti-war rhetoric (even when needed), freeing criminals, letting terrorists have rights even after they have committed mass killings, talking openly to Kim Jong-il, Chavez, Castro and all the like. But in the end that leads to chaos. It just hasn't gotten there yet to prove it (thanks be to conservatives). Communism focuses more on economics. Perfect communism as Karl Marx thought would eventually lead us into utopia, but the Stalins of this world changed his idea and instead of having true equality, he had forced equality. This face of the left has bent so far left they became right-winged to the extreme (picture another Marx, e.g., Groucho, saying "if I hold you any closer I'll be behind you" and you'll get the meaning). So you can have liberalism without communism and you can have communism without liberalism. But neither are good to have. Both undermine the scriptures and mock the face of God. Both would say that the pledge of allegiance should not have God in it and both would allow abortion, one would allow it to happen and the other would force it to happen. A huge problem is they use each other as allies and when you have some who believe in both such as Harry Reid and company then you get what we have today in congress.
Maybe there is more to it than just left-wing and right-wing politics. Maybe it is at least a two-fold process. This chart to help us understand how American politics work and how we got here in today's time. Maybe the political spectrum should not be linear but axial (quadrants). The more you go to the right you have those who believe in more government control based on holding onto traditions and laws to keep order, not based on secret police and censorship per se. The more you go to the left you have those you are more for individuality and change, not based on morality and protection of freedom. The farther up you go you have those who believe in a free market with less regulations and the farther down you go you have those who believe in controlling the market. So those who are on the right bottom quadrant believe in controlling everything. Those in the top left quadrant run amok.
And by this you can see that Obama is just as "centered" as President Bush was but more for a controlled market, thereby making him closer to a communist than a pure democrat which (and this is hated to say it) Bill Clinton was, who was more centrist than either Obama or Bush. The reason why Bush was elected after Clinton was because the country under Clinton moved left, but saw his leadership and immorality humiliate the office.
The reason why Obama was elected was because McCain was closer to Bush's economics and people thought a change was needed due to the market falling and the right could not support him based on his liberalness compared to the rest of the right. Obama had liberal ideas but quickly moved right (not centered though) with his agenda. He came across as liberal but has quickly become more communist. If he stays out there he is done. If he moves more towards the center he could get re-elected. So, Obama was considered liberal but now he is more communist. And that is why the left doesn't really even like him anymore, such as Dennis Kucinich.
The problem again is they ally themselves when it comes time for agendas but the Democrats' agendas are so wide-based and unrealistic that they can't get anything done. "I am fighting for you" is said to every group they speak to, no matter who it is. Now, how can you do that?
Ultra-conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh are so hard-core they look like Hitler to those in the center and left and that is why they are portrayed that way. This is also why Sarah Palin will not be president. Reagan was everyman's president because he was so central. Hilary is also centric but she is moving with her fellow butchers to the right and south! Ralph Nader is just wacko but he steals a lot of votes so he is good man.
0 comments:
Post a Comment