More Evidence of Americans’ Discontent with US Democracy

Posted on by July 14, 2023

This story states that only 10% of Americans think democracy in the United States is working “very or extremely well.” This is further evidence that the American public is open to electoral reform.

On a personal note, I marched in a parade with other FairVote Illinois volunteers on Saturday, July 1 in Palatine, Illinois, and was somewhat surprised at the extent of the positive reception for Ranked Choice Voting along the parade route.

Comments

More Evidence of Americans’ Discontent with US Democracy — 112 Comments

  2. It isn’t supposed to be a democracy. See federalist and antifederalist papers among other things.

  3. NONSTOP ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER SYSTEMS IN USA SINCE 4 JULY 1776.

    1/2 X 1/2 = 1/4 = OLIGARCHS IN ALL LARGER REGIMES IN USA – WITH LAWLESS GANG MONARCHS.

    NONSTOP BRAINWASHING BY USELESS BRAIN DEAD MEDIA THAT THE FED/STATE/LOCAL ELECTION SYSTEMS ARE *DEMOCRATIC*.
    —
    PR
    APPV
    TOTSOP
    —-
    14 JULY 1789 – BASTILLE DAY IN FRANCE –
    DOOM FOR OLDE DARK AGE FRENCH MONARCHS/OLIGARCHS >>> NAPOLEON – EVEN WORSE KILLER TYRANT
    ANOTHER EARLY WORLD WAR

    FRANCE 1958 FIFTH SO-CALLED REPUBLIC — TYRANT PRESIDENT SYSTEM
    NOW – MORE/MORE RIOTS

    VIVE LA FRANCE

  4. 4-4 RFG =
    INDIRECT MAJORITY RULE [DEMOCRACY] VIA LEGIS BODIES

    MUCH TOO DIFFICULT FOR THE HOARDS OF MORONS IN LAW SKOOOLS, POLISCI DEPTS AND THE BRAIN DEAD COURTS- ESP SCOTUS
    —
    P-A-T

  6. The positive reception for RCV is a hopeful sign that, even if most people are currently unable or unwilling to vote third/minor party or Independent in elections, they at least understand that the current system is a flawed, rigged joke that needs massive change. We need to ratchet up the pressure on legislators, ie, marching in parades like you did, or letters to the editor, or protests, or directly talking with said legislators if the rare opportunity presents itself.

  7. You want ranked choice voting or proportional representation or whatever?
    You need this combo:
    1. Alternative voting systems being chic ideas
    2. Politicians losing their seats left and right (pun) because of spoilers under first-past-the-post

    Having just #1 doesn’t do anything. Politicians don’t wanna mess up what works for them.
    Having just #2 results in tighter ballot access laws.
    Having both makes the problem and the solution newsworthy at the same time. Then you’ll get the reaction you want.

  10. The US and every other place in the world has had minority rule for over 6,000 years, remember? It’s not since 1776. Name one place that ever had majority rule. Not Greek city states, since they didn’t allow women or most men to vote.

  11. Still no evidence that pure democracy wouldn’t be worse than what we have now. Given the incentives, it probably would be.

    AZ has yet to give any reason to believe it would be better, or that any of his “solutions” would make things better rather than worse. Even if you were to agree the present system is terrible, it could still be worse. Examples of when and where it was better, and theories as to why, might help.

    Even if things could not get worse, which isn’t the case by a long shot, it may be that AZ has the best solutions, or it may be something completely different. Are his proposals even directionally better? I tend to think no but if anyone agrees with him about any of them please explain your reasons. He sure doesn’t.

  13. AZ is lying. Republicans are not fascist. Democrats are closer to fascist than Republicans. FDR and Mussolini admired each other in the 1930s. Fascism and progressivism have a lot in common.

  14. AZ @ 1151

    OR MORE LIKELY YOU ARE THE MORON, NOT ALL THOSE FOLKS. I’D ASK WHAT A 4-4 RFG WAS BUT I DOUBT IT MATTERS.

  15. REAL DEMOCRACY –

    100 PCT CERTAIN TO BE ***BETTER*** THAN THE 6,000 PLUS YEARS OF KILLER/ENSLAVER MONARCH/OLIGARCH REGIMES OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION.

    VARIOUS CURRENT PR REGIMES ARE ABOUT 95 PCT *DEMOCRATIC*. —

    BUT — HAVE OTHER FATAL DEFECTS – PARL REGIMES, TOP PARTY HACKS PICKING PR CANDIDATES IN RANK ORDERS, ETC.

    —
    NON-TROLL MORONS CAN LOOK UP *REPUBLICAN* IN THE 1787-1788 FEDERALIST PAPERS RE USA CONST 4-4—

    TOO HARD FOR LAWYER MORONS IN SCOTUS STATE/LOCAL GERRYMANDER CASES.
    —
    P-A-T

    REAL DEMOCRACY ON PAPER – TO HAVE REAL CHANCE FOR REAL DEMOCRACY IN FACT

  16. 100 percent better? Prove it. You saying so is not proof, or even a reason to agree with you. You are giving Z – E – R – O reasons to agree.

    I don’t know how you calculate your percentages. 95 percent? How do you arrive at that? Show examples and how they are better in terms of actual results. Any counterexamples?

    I’ve looked up Republican in federalist papers and other source material. They argue against pure democracy quite vociferously.

    Lawyers are not “morons” for failing to spend limited resources (time and money) on your proven failed arguments. There are good reasons you are not bringing them anymore and no one else is either. Most of those reasons would continue to be true even in the extremely unlikely case you are completely correct about everything on merits.

    Real democracy would be worse than what we have now. I’ll defend that position if anyone besides AZ wants to take the counter.

  17. ABOUT 5 PCT OF VOTES IN CURRENT PR REGIMES DO NOT ELECT ANYBODY.

    ABOUT 40 PCT OF VOTES IN USA GERRYMANDER SYSTEMS DO NOT ELECT ANYBODY — CRACK AND PACK G AREAS.

    UNEQUAL WINNER VOTES

    UNEQUAL TOTAL VOTES PER GERRYMANDER AREA.

    USA CONST 4-4 AND 14-1 EP CL SUBVERTED.

  18. According to your interpretation, which it has been proven courts are very unlikely to agree with. The constitution was never intended to create pure democracy, and you still provide zero reason to believe it’s better than what the constitution does provide or any number of other alternatives.

  19. Are there any defenders of pure democracy here besides AZ? Looking for people willing to discuss or debate rationally. Not AZ.

  20. To save yourself time, plug in criticisms of democracy into your favorite search engine. Or you could revisit those federalist and antifederalist papers. Any number of starting points.

    Or, maybe nobody agrees with AZ?

  21. TOOK 2 MODERN WORLD WARS TO END *** DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS *** IN VARIOUS EMPIRES —

    COST — ABOUT 110 MILLION DEAD AND DESTRUCTION OF MUCH PROPERTY IN EUROPE / EAST ASIA

    ANYBODY SAYING IT IS ***BETTER*** TO BRING BACK THE OLDE *** DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS *** [IE HAVING ABSOLUTE LAWLESS TYRANTS] ???

    –OTHER THAN SOME BAN TROLL MORONS ???

  22. Joe “Fascism and progressivism have a lot in common.”

    Republicans are just right wing progressives. Particularly the so-called Social Conservatives, who are simply the political descendants of the Prohibitionists of a century ago.

  23. Liberals and centrists have more in common with progressives as well as fascists than right wing Republicans have with any of them. Right wing Republicans are also not prohibitionists. In fact, they’re no more likely to be prohibitionist than leftists are. Prohibitionists have a wide variety of views on other subjects. Progressive prohibitionists a hundred years ago were generally progressive on other issues. They were not the only prohibitionists back then either.

  24. Divine right of kings and pure democracy are two of many possible systems. They are far from the only alternatives. Why is AZ scared to let anyone else make a case for pure democracy? I’d like to hear from other people as I already made clear.

  29. AZ – I have. Have you? Founders argued against pure democracy. Name one that didn’t, with citations. Again, why are you scared to let other people defend your direct democracy? I specifically asked for arguments from other people.

  30. FOR NON-TROLL MORONS —

    THERE ARE ALSO UTOPIAN

    UNANIMITY — 100 PCT AGREE ON ALL LAWS – AKA *CONSENSUS*

    ANARCHY — NOOOO GOVT. >>> *LAW OF JUNGLE* — MIGHT [FORCE] MAKES RIGHT
    —-
    STANDARD 3 — SINCE OLDE BC GREECE/ROMAN REGIMES

    DEMOCRACY – MAJORITY RULE
    OLIGARCHY – MINORITY RULE 2 OR MORE, LESS THAN MAJORITY
    MONARCHY – MINORITY RULE – ONE

  32. HOW MANY STATES HAVE THE VOTERS VOTING ON LEGISLATION – ????

    STATE CONSTS
    STATE CONST AMDTS
    STATE LAWS
    LOCAL CHARTERS
    LOCAL CHARTER AMDTS
    LOCAL ORDINACES

    SUCH REGIMES ANY *BETTER*/WORSE THAN NO VOTE FOR VOTERS REGIMES
    —- IE ONLY TOP ELITES CAN VOTE ON LEGISLATION.

  33. Yes, the Prohibitionists from a hundred years ago did have other issues… like banning prostitution. Just like Social Conservatives today.

    Or this gem, from the 1924 Prohibition Party platform: “The Bible is the Magna Charta of human liberty and national safety and is of highest educational value. Therefore it should have a large place in our public schools.”

    Social Conservatives are the political descendants of the Prohibitionists. They basically just swapped alcohol for drugs and added abortion.

    A progressive is someone who believes there are problems in society and the force of government ought to be used to address those problems. A left progressive wants the government to enforce political, social, or economic inequality. A right progressive wants the government to enforce their preferred flavor of nationalism (cultural, like the social conservatives, but there are also ethno-nationalists and economic nationalists. They would support right-progressive policies like banning non-white immigrants and supporting protectionist tariffs … or farm price supports, which is another item shared with the Prohibition Party.) For the Prohibition party, alcohol was the main problem in society. They believed society would be better without it, and wanted government to ban it. That makes them progressive. Social Conservatives think the country would be better if the government banned drugs, pornography, prostitution, abortion, etc. They are right wing progressives, just like the Prohibitionists.

  34. Disagreement with AZ doesn’t make someone a troll moron. AZ is making more elementary logic and argument errors than I can unpack. How about letting anyone else on your side make an argument, AZ? Scared no one agrees with you, or that none of you are capable of rational discussion or debate? I don’t even agree with your position and could still make a better argument for it than you. There are plenty of systems besides what you mentioned, and plenty of mixed systems.

  36. Jim : again, false. For one thing you cherry pick issues. For another not all prohibitionists a hundred years ago were in the prohibition party. For yet another there were different factions on various issues in that party .

    1916 prohibition party platform included:

    http://prohibitionists.org/Background/Party_Platform/Platform1916.htm

    Expanding voting to include women

    World court

    International compact to dismantle armies and navies

    No profits for military/weapons contractors

    Using US Army to reclaim / reforest hills and mountains, build national highways and waterways (at a time when these were radical big government ideas), various other large scale construction and conservation projects far beyond actual federal practices in 1916

    Another passage for big govt conservationism

    Absolute separation of church and state

    Could keep going but you get the idea. Definitely not today’s social conservatives by any stretch.

  38. The same 1924 prohibition party platform Jim refers to also called for big federal govt sponsored conservation, international courts, public welfare (this was before New Deal, depression, etc), federal interference in agricultural commodities (that also came later), compulsory attendance of government schools, etc. It was modern day progressive on quite a few issues, particularly for its time.

  39. Thank you posting, Bill Redpath, and for marching in the parade for Ranked Choice Voting. We talked about you in our Libertarian Party Meetup last night.

  41. Crowds can embrace anything if they don’t hear a counterargument loudly enough, and may well ricochet to opposite ideas based on what they heard last. Which gets back to a fundamental problem with democracy.

    Probably didn’t hurt that the parade was in chicagoland,which has a high percentage of leftists and demorats compared with most states and even most parts of Illinois for that matter.

  42. Still, nobody except AZ making a case for pure democracy? There must be some people here who agree with him? No?

  43. There is no major push by social conservatives to revoke women’s right to vote. There is no conflict there.

    Foreign policy was not core to the Prohibitionists a hundred years ago, just as it is not core to social conservatives today. They take temporary positions based on current events. Same with environmental issues. There are social conservatives today who believe that God gave man stewardship of the earth and failing to protect the environment is a failure of that duty. Others don’t care about environmental protection. They’re all social conservatives, though, because that isn’t core to their ideology.

    The core of social conservatism is cultural nationalism. Specifically Christian, or Judeo-Christian, if they’re feeling inclusive.

    If you ask a social conservative, they will tell you they stand for religious liberty, also. And they mean it. They don’t want to ban other religions or to forcibly convert atheists to Christianity. What they do want is to use the government to impose their cultural values on all of society – even if that isn’t done in the name of God. Their religious beliefs may discourage prostitution, but banning it is just good policy and has nothing to do with God at all. Honest.

    What does the very first sentence of that Prohibition platform that you referenced say? “The Prohibition Party … grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, for our institutions and the multiplying signs of early victory for the cause for which the Party stands in order that the people may know the source of its faith and the basis of its action, should it be clothed with governmental power…” It’s right up front. Their core issues, though, have nothing to do with God at all. It’s just good policy. Honest.

  44. AZ 701 PM

    Good question. Does anyone care to make an empirical case why I & R locales have better outcomes than those without, in your opinion, if that’s the opinion you hold? If you don’t know what empirical means, or aren’t sure, please look it up first. Compare outcomes across the broad range of I & R and non I & R locales.

  45. Jim, it’s not a question of revoking. It was a directional push to massively expand the franchise. That would be a position identified with progressives, not conservatives, now. The direction of proposed changes was the issue. To the extent that people who oppose women voting speak up today, they are generally considered extreme conservative or reactionary or far right. I happen to be one, but change happens at the margins. As a practical matter I support purging the voter rolls more frequently and other politically palatable ideas, not my radically reactionary long term goals.

    If all these other issues were not important to prohibitionists why were they so important in their platform? And why the lack of a bunch of other socially conservative positions on many other issues? Incidentally, opposition to women voting was a mainstream social conservative position back then.

    If biblical teaching in schools was central to prohibitionists, why no mention of it in 1916?

    The bulk of the prohibitionist agenda in both 1916 and 1924 was what was then called progressive. Prohibition itself was not considered a socially conservative issue either. It was considered progressive both by many of its proponents and many of its opponents. Heavier regulations of alcohol and tobacco are often advocated by progressives even now. As for treatment of illegal drugs it’s another issue that’s frequently orthogonal to left and right. There are even social conservatives for legalizing drugs, and plenty of progressives who favor cracking down.

    The boilerplate about God in the prohibition platform you cite wasn’t particularly controversial in 1924. It likely had its equivalents in the Republican and Democrat platforms of the time. Naturally everyone wanted to claim God was on their side.

    If you think social conservatives today are the side seeking to impose their cultural values on everyone through government, and leftists just want to be left alone and leave everyone else alone , you’re living in a parallel reality. Leftists are quite aggressive in trying to use government to impose their cultural values on everyone. Do you really need examples? I’m sure you can think of some without my help .

  53. Pat –

    “If all these other issues were not important to prohibitionists why were they so important in their platform?”

    The other issues were included in the platform to provide a more robust policy agenda. They were not core to the ideology. Imagine someone claiming to be from the Prohibition Party in 1920 who did not want to ban alcohol. It’s unthinkable because that would be a violation of their core beliefs. All that foreign policy stuff from the 1916 platform listed above? It was absent from the Prohibition platforms of 1912 and 1928.

    “And why the lack of a bunch of other socially conservative positions on many other issues?”

    Abortion didn’t become an issue until the 1970s. But, opposition to prostitution was in the early platforms, the reference to teaching the bible in school came from 1924, and by 1932 there was a plank which read “We favor Federal control at the source of the output of the motion picture industry to prevent the degrading influence of immoral pictures and insidious propaganda connected therewith.”

    I’ve read every Prohibition party platform between 1872 and 1932 (and also most other parties platforms for long stretches of time). What changes, what recurs – the pattern becomes clear over time.

    “Incidentally, opposition to women voting was a mainstream social conservative position back then.”

    The opponents of women’s suffrage were not ideologically united. My point is that the Prohibition party was progressive AND that today’s social conservatives are also progressives. They are called “conservative” today because of the antiquity of their ideas, not because they want to preserve old institutions. At least, they don’t want to preserve much which dates from prior to the progressive era. Take a social conservative from today and send him back to 1916 and he would be called a progressive.

    “The boilerplate about God in the prohibition platform you cite wasn’t particularly controversial in 1924. It likely had its equivalents in the Republican and Democrat platforms of the time.”

    I checked 1916 and 1924, both R and D. None mentioned God.

    1924 Prohibitionist open just made it more clear: “The Prohibition Party in National Convention at Columbus, Ohio, this sixth day of June, 1924, recognizing Almighty God as the source of all governmental authority and that the principles enunciated by His Son, Jesus Christ, should guide in all matters pertaining to government, makes the following declaration of principles:”

    That sort of language is entirely absent from the R and D platforms of the time.

    “If you think social conservatives today are the side seeking to impose their cultural values on everyone through government, and leftists just want to be left alone and leave everyone else alone , you’re living in a parallel reality. Leftists are quite aggressive in trying to use government to impose their cultural values on everyone. Do you really need examples? I’m sure you can think of some without my help .”

    You’re attempting to argue against a position which I do not hold. My position is that social conservatives (more appropriately, cultural nationalists) are right progressives and are trying to impose their cultural values on everyone. Left progressives are also trying to impose their values on everyone. Left and right progressives have different values, but they are both trying to force them on everyone.

  54. Nothing is core to prohibitionism except prohibition. The reasons for which different people wanted prohibition differed, and their opinions on all other issues differed from each other. They were definitely not uniformly social conservatives.

    The expansion of the vote to women was at the time a liberal or progressive idea. It’s not much of a controversy a hundred years later, but to the small extent it is, it’s ultraconservative. More to the point, today’s liberals or progressives seek to further expand the franchise, and conservatives seek to hold or roll back the line, generally speaking. Do you disagree? Who’s more likely to contend that felons, noncitizen permanent residents, 16 and 17 year olds, people who just moved, transient college students and so on should be able to vote? It’s a pretty obvious answer.

    Obviously, before women’s voting was accepted even by people calling themselves conservative, it was the conservatives of the time who opposed changing what had historically been the norm.

    I disagree with your contention that today’s social conservatives don’t want to preserve social institutions from before the progressive era. To the extent anyone wants to preserve them, it’s conservatives. It’s true that people who hold the social views which were mainstream progressive a hundred years ago are conservative now, because conservatives failed to hold the line on social “progress.” Directionally, however, they’re trying to hold the line on that or roll it back, much as conservatives a hundred years ago; the trenches just shifted over time. Directionally it’s the same battle. Those of us who want to (ideally at some future point) roll back social “progress” more than a hundred years are thus extreme reactionary ultraconservatives as far as elite discourse is concerned. We’re certainly not liberals or progressives.

    Forcing cultural values on everyone is something that’s hard to avoid when so much power is in the hands of government, and government power is concentrated primarily at the national level (and sometimes international). To the extent anyone marginally argues for leaving power out of the hands of government, or having more of it at more local levels, it’s more likely to be people identified with the right, not with the left. Today’s left generally argues for having government control as much as possible, and against states and counties control of their own affairs.

    Social conservatives are social conservatives. A 1920s social conservative may have quarelled with dresses ending above the knee, whereas now that look is conservative compared to the “progressive” flaunting of body parts no one in the mainstream wanted to make legal flaunting in public back then. Battle lines shifted but the principle remains the same.

  55. Second paragraph above, ultraconservative or reactionary to oppose it. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, incidentally.

  59. OLDE SOUTH DONKEYS- PRE-1865 -GET ECON $$$ VIA BLACK SLAVES

    ALL DONKEYS – SINCE 1865- GET ECON $$$ VIA NET TAX SLAVES {ALL COLORS) AND MORON LENDERS TO GOVTS

    HAVING GOTTEN ECON $$$– TIME TO MESS WITH SOCIAL STUFF- FORCED ASSOCIATIONS, ETC.

  60. The philosopher Aristotle said in his Politics that there were three forms of government:

    1. democracy
    2. aristocracy
    3 monarchy

    He said that each, by itself had strengths and weaknesses, but that the best constitution combined all three elements. Each element in a mixed system served to check the excesses and weaknesses of the other elements.

    Thomas Jefferson stated that all three elements are present in the US Constitution: the House of Representatives is the democratic element, the President is the monarchic element, and the Senate (which was originally elected indirectly) and courts are the aristocratic element.

    On the whole, the US constitution has worked pretty well to maintain freedom with a strong system of checks and balances.

    IMO, the main flaw of the US constitution is the Presidency. Both major parties, over the years, have sought to short circuit the checks and balances by allowing more and more power to gravitate to the President. It has gotten so bad that neither major party can tolerate having the office help by the other, and, so, both major parties now engage in delegitimizing the President whenever that office is held by the other major party.

    I believe the solution to this problem is to adopt the Swiss system of a joint executive. They have a seven member executive council which is chosen from all the major parties, and among which the ceremonial office of President is rotated every year.

    I think that the Electoral College should be retained for the purpose of choosing such a council in the US, and the method of voting by them should ensure that both major parties are always represented on the executive council. In this way, neither major party would have exclusive access to government information at any time, and executive policy would be based on whatever minimal consensus that they can maintain.

  63. Pat – You seem to be lumping all conservatives together while my intent was to separate them. When I speak of “Social Conservatives” that, to me, comes with a specific ideological set that is distinct from the other factions of the Republican party: NeoConservatives, PaleoConservatives, the increasingly rare Buckleyites, and the now outcast Modern Liberal/quasi-libertarian Economic Conservatives.

    “Conservative”, in and of itself, means only a reluctance to change. It needs a prefix or qualifier which signals *reluctance to change from what.* That provides the contextual ideological set.

    When I speak of Social Conservatives, I am speaking of the ideological set of today’s Social Conservatives. That ideological set can be traced to the Prohibitionists of a century ago. It is not the same as the ideological set of what you are describing as the social conservatives of the 1910s. There is no ideological line of decent from the people you are describing as social conservatives in the 1910s and today’s Social Conservatives. They may (or may not) have been conservative, but they are not the same sort of conservative. They need a different prefix.

    It was, and remains, a right-progressive position to ban alcohol and prostitution. The same applies to drugs. The continued prohibition on drugs and prostitution is pushed by the Social Conservatives within the Republican party. The other factions either don’t particularly care one way or the other because their core belief system does not dictate a position on that, or they oppose the prohibition on drug and prostitution prohibition. The factions which do not care one way or the other might side with the Social Conservatives out of political convenience, but that doesn’t make it a core position for them.

    Social Conservatives are only “conservative” because they have a reluctance to change from the ideological set of the early 1900s Prohibitionists right-progressives.

    NeoConservatives are only “conservative” because they have a reluctance to change from the Cold War Progressive Democrats from the 1950s – 1970s, after swapping the Soviets for Muslim terrorists, of course. Their core beliefs surround foreign policy and national security. There is no conflict between them and the Social Conservative policy agenda, so it’s an easy political alliance.

    PaleoConservatives are a hybrid which formed in the 1950s and 60s – a mix of the Old Right Republicans and ethno-nationalist Democrats. Their core beliefs involve opposition to socialism and keeping out foreign influence (including protectionist tariffs and immigration restrictions. They also can easily ally with Social Conservatives, but their isolationist tendencies put them in conflict with NeoConservatives.

    Hence, Bush could ally with Social Conservatives, and Trump could ally with Social Conservatives, but Bush and Trump were in conflict. They all call themselves conservatives, though.

    See? Yes, there are conservatives who value the political institutions and ideas prior to the Progressive Era. But not the Social Conservatives. It’s more the Modern Liberal/quasi-libertarian/Economic Conservatives, the Buckleyites, and the PaleoConservatives who do that. To varying degrees.

  64. I agree with you that Progressives and Fascists have fundamental things in common. They both reject the idea that individuals have any rights other than those granted by government, with the result that government has theoretically unlimited power. But, there isn’t a connection beyond that.

    Fascism wasn’t formed as a third way *between* socialism and liberalism, as one of your links claimed. Rather, per Mussolini, fascism was a third way which *rejected* both socialismm and liberalism.

    Fascism is right wing because it is nationalist. It is authoritarian nationalist, and that authoritarianism gives it a lot in common with the authoritarian left, but it is still to the right. Picture a diamond, with socialism on the left, nationalism on the right, and authoritarianism on the bottom. Fascism would be bottom right while Maoism would be bottom left. Social conservatism would be more center right and social democratism center left.

    Progressivism isn’t right or left. It can be either. As I said, Progressivism is just the recognition of problems in society and the advocacy of government to fix those problems. If the problem is economic, like a lack of affordable healthcare, it’s left. If the problem is perceived social instability from drug or alcohol use, it’s right.

  65. L/R EXTREMISTS = L/R STATISTS WITH THEIR L/R STATISM = L/R TYRANTS

    GRADUAL WORSE STATIST CONTROL OF USA ECONOMY SINCE 1929 — ABOUT 10 PCT GOVT TO NOW ABOUT 40-45 PCT GOVT

    ROUGHLY 25 PCT BORROWING PER PEACETIME YEAR SINCE 1929 >>> ABOUT $$$ 45 TRILLION DEBT – ALL GOVTS IN USA

  68. SOME RESULTS OF THE USA REGIME –

    GENOCIDE OF AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES TO 1890

    SLAVERY TO 1865

    MAJOR INFLATION AND DEBT WITH EACH WAR

    SINCE 1929 – NONSTOP DEFICITS AND MORE/MORE DEBT

    SINCE 1933 – MORE/MORE INFLATION – DESTRUCTION OF PAPER SAVINGS

    LOT BY LOT DESTRUCTION OF OLDE ONE-TIME MAJOR CITIES

    CONCRETING MORE/MORE >>> WORSE/WORSE SUMMER HEATING

    ANY REGIME IN USA WITHOUT A SECRET BALLOT ???
    —-
    P-A-T

  70. The problem with Detroit is letting too many people vote. Detroit was fine before the mid 1960s, other than the union thugs, but that was a minor problem compared with what goes on there now l. A lot of the problems in the US stem from people who should not be allowed to vote being given that right. As voting rights have been expanded to ignore and then cut down the limitations wisely imposed by the Founders, the US has gone downhill and getting ever closer to full blown totalitarian bolshevism. Bolshevism literally translated is tyranny by the majority.

  71. I’m not interested in subscribing to fake news in order to read AZ fake news links. The Detroit Faux Pas or “freep” is a pay site, in addition to the yellow rag it is associated with being a notorious bird cage liner for decades now.

  72. Good questions from Pat earlier in the thread above. Too bad AZ doesn’t have the intellectual curiosity or presence of mental faculties to answer them, and apparently no one else here agrees with him about pure democracy either; which is good, because it’s a terrible idea.

  73. DETROIT –
    HAD 9 MEMBER CITY COUNCIL ALL AT LARGE IN 1967 [RIOT YEAR]

    IN 1967 BLACKS WERE ABOUT 40 PCT OF POP WITH NO BLACKS ON THE CC.

    —-
    NOW 2 AT LARGE- 7 IN GERRYMANDER DISTS — ROT CONTINUES.
    —
    P-A-T

  74. Yes, and Detroit was better governed before 1967 than after. Coincidence? I doubt it.

  75. Reader,

    Yes, the lack of any discernible intellect on the part of pure democracy proponents, while not exactly unsurprising, is nevertheless disappointing.

  76. If diversification of voting and representation on governing bodies leads to better results or better government, why would Detroit rot after minorities gained political power by rioting? If the races are equal, why has Detroit gone downhill as the former minority became the new majority ? Why has this pattern happened over and over in so many different places and times?

  77. Jim, you should resist the temptation to overcategorize. For example, I’m a social conservative or reactionary, traditionalist conservative, national conservative, paleoconaservative, fiscal conservative, etc. Most people don’t fall neatly into any of these categories.

    I don’t know where you draw your definition of social conservative from. Some social conservatives are nationalist, but not all. In fact some are explicitly antinationalist, internationalist, localist, or even individual anarchist. Social conservatives and cultural conservatives may or may not be nationalist. Those are orthogonal categories.

    Likewise, nationalism is not inherently right wing or left wing. There are plenty of historical and current examples of left wing nationalist movements. Anticolonial and national liberation movements, for instance. Black nationalism, Arab nationalism, and many other kinds of nationalism are often considered left wing (perhaps you would argue with that). Stalinism is nationalist, as opposed to Trotskyist communist internationalism. You can join the Trotskyist argument that communist regimes were and are right wing if you wish.

    Bottom line; social conservativism isn’t necessarily nationalist, and nationalism isn’t necessarily right wing. I’ll make this a separate comment so we can agree or disagree about this much and address other parts separately.

  78. I’m not sure how social conservative ideology now evolves from prohibitionist ideology of the 1910s and 20s. There are many parts of the 1916 and 1924 prohibition party platforms which I would have opposed at the time, and which I and many social conservatives would oppose now. Others have become part of the national consensus since then, but to the extent that opposition to them now exists, it would be considered socially very conservative or reactionary. The fact that many social conservatives now accept many positions which were considered progressive back then doesn’t make those positions socially conservative now, and it certainly doesn’t travel back in time to make them socially conservative at a time when they obviously were not.

    For example: No social conservative would argue for women voting in 1900. At the time, that was a socially liberal or radical position. Arguing its opposite might be considered radical now, but certainly not liberal or progressive. It might be termed reactionary or ultraconservative and so on.

    You claim without evidence that certain parts of the prohibition party platforms of 1916 and 1924 were not central to prohibitionism, but that a generalised statement with no policy specifics present in one but not the other was central to prohibitionism. In reality, only prohibition is central to prohibitionism, and prohibitionists are and were divided on all other issues.

    Most prohibitionists were not voters, much less active members, of the prohibition party. Of the party members, only a small fraction were delegates at national conventions. Out of those, only a few took active roles in writing or debating the party platforms. Thus, party platforms hammered together by a small group of people all of whom are now dead are of very limited value in discerning what all the millions of prohibitionists believed. Some people supported prohibition for culturally traditionalist or conservative reasons, others supported it for what were considered progressive reasons. Some were nationalists and some were not.

    The same is true today. Prohibitionist or partially prohibitionist policies towards alcohol and tobacco are often advocated by people generally considered left wing progressives for reasons which are consistent with their other views. The same is even true for other substances.

    It’s possible to argue against drug prohibition for conservative reasons such as:

    Make drugs legal so fewer people will use them out of rebelliousness

    Make drugs legal so natural selection can kill off more drug users

    Make drugs legal because the failure of drug prohibition helps spread general disrespect for law and morality in general

    Make drugs legal because prohibition costs tax money and doesn’t work

    Make drugs legal because immoral corporations are less bad than violent criminal gangs

    Make drugs legal to curb government corruption

    Make drugs legal because government is not the best solution to all problems, and attempts to use it as such only create more problems

    Etc. Likewise it’s possible to argue for keeping drugs illegal and cracking down more for progressive reasons such as;

    Drugs and drug related crime disproportionately hurt poor and minorities

    Drug trafficking is often closely tied to human trafficking

    Government is a better, more comprehensive, more effective way of addressing pervasive social problems than religious, charitable, business, family, and other voluntary solutions

    Etc.

    Without saying which of these arguments either of us agree with, can we agree that there were and are now, as well as then, arguments both for and against alcohol or other mind altering substance prohibition from both left wing and right wing perspectives alike?

    If we can agree that prohibitionism, as well as nationalism, can be either left wing or right wing, and that either or both can be supported or opposed by people who are generally social conservatives, we might have the basis for some agreement.

  79. You could try to claim that American nationalism is inherently right wing. That’s not necessarily true either. Which side was more right wing or conservative in the American revolution? The traditional European conservative position was divine right of kings; American revolutionaries made decidedly radical liberal arguments for their independence. Were loyalists nationalists or were they traitors? Loyalism was certainly the conservative position in terms of institutional changes.

    Which side was more right wing during the “civil” war (or war for southern independence)? The CSA was more socially conservative, and both sides were nationalists of their own sort, but many of the arguments for southern independence were the same as those of American revolutionaries in the preceding century. In fact, progressive historical revisionists today are arguing that the American revolution was largely a preemptive move to safeguard slavery because the UK was starting to make it illegal in the 1770s and colonial planters feared they would be next.

    Is nationalization nationalist? Is it right wing? Socially conservative? How about imperialism and colonialism – nationalist? Right wing? Socially conservative?

  80. Jim, you mentioned that prostitution prohibition is a right wing position. Left wingers often argue for prostitution prohibition on feminist grounds. Is radical feminism right wing or socially conservative in your opinion?

  81. Jim. I’m also trying to understand the basis of your contention that social conservatives don’t want to conservative institutions that existed prior to the early 1900s progressive era. Can you please explain what institutions and ideas you mean?

    If anyone is for preserving religious and cultural institutions, traditional marriage and family, business and farm independence from government overreach, local sovereignty, states rights vis a vis federal, national sovereignty vis a vis globalist, etc, it’s either social conservatives, or people who are more likely to be socially conservative than socially liberal.

    Today’s liberals or progressives often argue for nationalizing or partially nationalizing the economy, nationalizing child rearing, against traditional religion, against traditional families and family values, against local and state independence, against the US founders and everything they stood for since they were White men and some owned slaves and worshipped Jesus, against preserving Christian and European civilization, and so on. Who is arguing to preserve these things besides social conservatives? Otherwise, what pre 20th century institutions are you referring to? Who are the social liberals and leftist progressives who want to preserve them?

  82. Jim, I am also still trying to unpack your claim that there is no line of decent from social conservative views from 1910 or earlier to now. I gave women’s fashion as an example. Social conservatives a hundred years ago considered skirts that exposed knees to be scandalous, and many argued that they should have been banned, or existing laws enforced. Today, the battle line may be much closer to the publicly exposed vagina in full view of children and families, but the side for greater modesty is still socially conservative, and the side for permissive pervasivenes of nudity is still “liberal” or “progressive.” When exactly did social conservatism become something completely different than what it was previously?

  83. AZ yesterday at 10:26, if things have been getting worse and worse as more and more people have been allowed to vote, how do you explain that? A larger portion of the population can now vote than a hundred years ago, so your ideology would say that the things you mention as rotting should be getting better instead. Your views are not logically coherent or consistent.

  86. Jim, many of my links make a variety of arguments that fascism is left wing. Did you actually read them? I can post additional ones if they were not persuasive enough, but I don’t see how you could have read them all and continue to maintain that fascism is right wing. If it’s right wing only because it’s nationalist, does that make third world national liberation movements, Stalinist regimes, black nationalist movements, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Arab nationalists, and every other type of nationalism right wing as well?

    How many of the links did you read? Is there anything besides nationalism which makes fascism right wing? Do you need additional links to prove fascism is actually left wing? The mischaracterization of fascism as left wing started as internal name calling among factional leftists, who often made a sport of calling each other right wing. It gained steam after Nazi Germany attacked the USSR, and even more after WWII as the left became increasingly eager to disavow its historical ties to fascism.

  87. Indeed, fascism is leftist. It doesn’t take a lot of digging to discover that.

  89. WHAT ???

    MAX ZIM MAKES A-N-Y LOGIC/TYPING ERRORS ???
    —

    WHO CARES WHETHER EXTREMIST CONTROL FREAK STATISTS ARE COMMIES OR FASCISTS ???

    DEATH AND DESTRUCTION AND SLAVERY IS THE SAME RESULT.
    —
    P-A-T

  90. FOR NON TROLL MORONS —

    ROT IN THE WEST MAINLY DUE TO —

    MORE/MORE MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER ELECTIONS

    WORSE/WORSE VIOLATIONS OF SOP

    MONARCH TYRANTS ON THE MARCH – LOVED BY MEDIA MORONS

    SEE 1930S – TOP FOLKS — MUSSOLINI – HITLER – HIROHITO VS FDR – CHAMBERLAIN/CHURCHILL – STALIN
    —
    P-A-T

  91. Of course I make errors. Unlike AZ, I readily acknowledge them, am open to changing my mind (and have changed it before when people have convinced me on a variety of things), and never claim to be omniscient. I don’t call everyone who questions or disagrees with me troll morons, again unlike AZ. And AZ is the one who claims the worst mistakes he ever makes are typographical. I make no such claims. I make mistakes and try to learn from them, unlike AZ, who thinks he already knows everything and is never wrong …

  92. az speaks with forked tongue. The franchise has generally been expanded, not contracted. It’s illogical to simultaneously contend that pure democracy is the solution and that we have rot / things getting worse and worse as we’ve been getting ever closer to pure democracy.

  93. Pat on July 17, 2023 at 2:19 pm

    I’m speaking of Social Conservatism the political ideology, not social conservative the personal preference. Someone might choose to dress modestly, but that does not make him a Social Conservative politically. Advocating government enforced modest dress would be a Social Conservative.

    You are absolutely correct that many people do not fit neatly into one, pure ideological box. But organizing categories allows us to see the political landscape.

    Social conservatism, the political ideology, is culturally nationalist. That has nothing to do with internationalism, anarchism, etc. Political borders may or may not coincide with a nation, and systems of government also often aren’t relevant.

    Part of our disagreement might be that we are using different definitions. So allow me to provide some definitions, so we’re on the same page:

    Nationalism is the division of the world into in-groups and out-groups. Nationalists are distinguished from private organizations in their advocacy of the use of government to either exclude out-groups from society, grant the in-group the highest level of privilege in society, or to impose the in-group’s values, culture, and traditions on all of society. Nationalism can be based on shared place of birth, history, race, religion, or other cultural practices. There is no economic system intrinsic to nationalism. It will adopt whatever economic system is preferred by the in-group.

    Social Conservatism is a type of cultural nationalism concerned with suppressing immoral behavior, including abortion, drug and alcohol abuse, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, a slothful work ethic, and general criminality. They attribute these behaviors to cultures other than their own, even if those cultures are within their country. Social Conservatives attempt to impose their values on all of society.

    Allowing or denying women’s right to vote has nothing to do with suppressing immoral behavior. It’s a policy that can be adopted to gain popular support without compromising the core ideology.

    Nationalism is definitionally right wing, just as socialism is definitionally left wing. When economic controls are combined with nationalism, as Stalinism did, it is no longer left or right but, rather South on a diamond shaped political map. That is the Totalitarian category. North is Liberalism / Libertarianism.

    This is the framework that I am using: https://i.imgur.com/AZt45Cc.png

    I invite you to give your own definitions of left and right wing, progressivism, and nationalism.

  94. Pat on July 17, 2023 at 3:00 pm

    Social Conservatism today is a direct line of decent from the Prohibitionists because they were both concerned with suppressing immoral behavior for the good of society. And they both based their interpretation of immoral behavior on a Christian/Judeo-Christian worldview.

    Forget the “Right-Progressive” and “Social Conservative” labels. It’s the ideology that’s the same – the concern with suppressing immoral behavior generally through a Christian lens. The label changed, but the ideology is the same. Like Liberalism and Libertarianism.

    So, yes. All Social Conservatives are Cultural Nationalists (they are a specific type of Cultural Nationalist). All Cultural Nationalists are Right-Progressives (they are a specific type of Right Progressive). And Prohbitionists are Social Conservatives because they have the same ideology, regardless of the time period.

    More definitions:

    Progressivism is the perception of problems in society and the advocacy of the use of government to solve those problems. That applies to ANY group which does this, even if they call themselves conservative. There are both right wing variants of progressivism (dealing with nationalism and economic or cultural instability) and left wing variants (dealing with economic, social, and political inequality). Right-Progressives stopped calling themselves progressive in the 1950s, as libertarians stopped calling themselves liberals, but the definitions still fit.

    Conservatism is a reluctance to change. The change from what could be any ideology. In 1770 the Monarchists in the US were conservative. In 1910 the Liberals in the US were conservative. In 1990 the Communists in the USSR were conservative. Conservative needs a prefix, or descriptor in order to identify its ideology. It’s almost meaningless without one.

    The Prohibitionists are Cultural Nationalists concerned with immoral behavior through a Christian lens and that has been consistent through the years:

    1872: … we recognize the good providence of Almighty God in supervising the interest of this nation from its establishment to the present time, having organized our party for the legal Prohibition of the liquor traffic, our reliance for success is upon the same omnipotent arm.

    1904: The Prohibition party, in national convention assembled, at Indianapolis, June 30, 1904, recognizing that the chief end of all government is the establishment of those principles of righteousness and justice which have been revealed to men as the will of the ever-living God

    1936: … the crass materialism of our dominant parties; their abandonment of moral precepts … must be replaced by a return to the early American principles of dependence upon Almighty God as the source of all just government and to a following of the principles of the Prince of Peace. The conclusion is inevitable that the prosperity and progress of the nation can come only through the spiritual and moral regeneration of the people manifested in government.

    1980: We, the representatives of the National Statesman Party (sic), assembled in National Convention at Birmingham, Alabama, June 18-19, 1979, recognizing Almighty God as the Source of all just government and with faith in the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, promise that, if our party is chosen to administer the affairs of our nation, we will …

    2024: We, the members of the Prohibition Party, assembled in convention this year in Buffalo, New York, supporting traditional values and with a firm reliance on the guidance of divine Providence…

    That is their core belief system. They are telling us how they view the world. Everything either flows from that, or is not central to that, but is designed to pick up additional support for their core belief platform.

    Your list for/against drug laws… I see left-progressive arguments for and against. Which is normal. As I said progressivism is the perception of problems in society. Which problems people see and how they want to address them will differ from person to person. Progressivism isn’t a fixed ideology. It’s an approach as to how society should be structured with regard to government.

    So there are left-progressive arguments for and against. And liberal/libertarian arguments against prohibition, but none for prohibition. And there are right-progressive arguments for prohibition, but none opposed to prohibition. A Culturally Nationalist argument against prohibition could be made by the Rastafarians. It is part of their culture. But, Rastafarians aren’t included in Social Conservatism, which is Judeo-Christian based.

  95. Pat on July 17, 2023 at 3:37 pm

    Banning prostitution because it runs against the values of the nation (it is immoral) is a right wing, nationalist position.

    Banning prostitution because the evil patriarchy is oppressing poor women (economic and social inequality) is a left-wing position.

    They are both progressives. They are both trying to improve society, from their point of view, with government force. On that issue, they happen to agree on the outcome, if for different reasons.

  96. PAT on July 17, 2023 at 3:59 pm

    The conservative institutions abandoned by social conservatives are cultural freedom from government interference. So, for example, the banning of prostitution. Somewhere I read that, prior to the Progressive era banning, something over a quarter of men lost their virginity to prostitutes. Thomas Jefferson said “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.” Progressives – of both the right and left variety – routinely disregard that in their quest to use government to forge a better society.

    The people who want to preserve that tradition most purely are the libertarians. Adherents to other ideologies want to keep pieces of it, when it aligns with their ideology, but will disregard it when it does not.

  97. Pat on July 17, 2023 at 4:09 pm

    I was referring to the people who opposed the right to vote for women. There is no ideological line of descent from the people who opposed women’s right to vote to social conservatives today, who are concerned with abolishing immorality through a Judeo-Christian lens. Much of the opposition to the right to vote wasn’t about immorality. It was often more pragmatic – women don’t pay attention to politics and so would be uninformed voters, women already have political influence through the men in their lives and would no longer be seen as politically neutral, women are more likely to be socialists, women will be more likely to use government to enforce their morality on society (Emma Goldman’s argument), etc.

    There is a line of decent from those who wanted to enforce clothing standards in the 1910s to social conservatives today.

  98. Pat on July 17, 2023 at 4:40 pm

    I read two of your links. One of them says this:

    “Fascism was crafted by ex-socialist as a third way between socialism and “liberalism” aka free market capitalism and individualism. It is correctly labeled as a nationalist movement but then so was the progressive movement.”

    That is partially correct. It was crafted by an ex-socialist. Emphasis on the ex. And it is a nationalist movement, which is definitionally right wing, by the terms I am using.

    The parts where it is wrong is that progressivism may or may not be nationalist. And it is wrong to say Fascism is a third way between socialism and liberalism. Rather, it is a rejection of them both. The Doctrine of Fascism, by Benito Mussolini, makes that explicitly clear.

    https://ia600800.us.archive.org/14/items/TheDoctrineOfFascismByBenitoMussolini/The%20Doctrine%20of%20Fascism%20by%20Benito%20Mussolini.pdf

    Fascism is a rejection of socialism. It is, like socialism, collectivist. And it does, like progressivism (both left and right), deny any rights to individuals other than those granted by government.

    Mussolini, in several places, describes the ways in which Fascism is not Socialist (leftist). Fascism rejects historical materialism. Fascism rejects class struggle. A sample quote: “Fascism denies the materialistic conception of happiness as a possibility… This means that Fascism denies the equation: well-being = happiness, which sees in men mere animals, content when they can feed and fatten, thus reducing them to a vegetative existence pure and simple.”

    It also describes why it rejects liberalism. And it describes what Fascism is. A sample quote: “Fascism believes now and always in sanctity and heroism, that is to say in acts in which no economic motive – remote or immediate – is at work.”

    I read the first 18 pages of the link from MaxZim V Zaslon on July 17, 2023 at 5:37 pm

    On page 2 of the text it provides a quote from Mussolini which reads “…will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of fascism”.

    Above I provided a link to the primary source. What Mussolini actually says is “We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the “right”, a Fascist century.”

    It wasn’t a dispute between Socialists that redefined Fascism from left to right. Mussolini himself labeled it as right. And people pushing an agenda have deliberately misquoted him. Always check the primary source material. Don’t take other people’s word for it.

    I strongly encourage you to read the link from Mussolini above. I didn’t understand Fascism until I did.

  99. You should read the rest of it. I think it makes a very persuasive case, along with everything else I linked. Goldberg and d’Souza certainly do as well.

    You have not addressed my counter examples of what is usually called left wing nationalism, other than by your definition of nationalism which is rather expansive and unusual. By your definition, for instance, Marxism – even internationalist Marxism – is nationalist, if “the working class” is the “in group.” Elitist globalism is then nationalism, if the global elitists are the in group. Liberalism is then nationalism too, because liberals want to impose their cultural values and preferred economic system on all of society.

    In fact, your definition of nationalism is more accurately applied to political government as a whole. Any use of government force would apparently meet your peculiar definition of nationalism. Please provide a counterexample if you disagree.

    Regarding the one cite you discuss, it’s one cite out of many in a long paper you read part of. Your cite is a translation by an admittedly biased source. Either one may have translated incorrectly. Furthermore, Mussolini and Gentile’s Doctrine of Fascism, written in 1927, was not published until 1932 in the Enciclopedia Italiana, pages 847-51. In 1940 Mussolini ordered all remaining copies of the document and its various editions and translations retracted because he changed his mind on some points.

    The original 1919 fascist manifesto is rather unambiguously leftist progressive:

    http://web.tiscalinet.it/regno76/testi/manifesti/Il%20manifesto%20dei%20fasci%20di%20combattimento.htm

    I’m not aware of it having been retracted, unlike the Doctrine of Fascism.

    I’ll address the rest separately.

  100. Let’s grant that political social conservatism is only such if it requires political force to enforce social conservative views. As such, the social conservative of a hundred years ago would seek to enforce a ban on public display of knees, whereas the social conservative of today might seek enforcement of bans against the public display of genitals. That doesn’t transform the basic position, only shifts the battle lines.

    I agree that social conservative ideology is centered around banning immoral behavior. More fundamentally, it’s about curbing immoral behavior, which would allow room for more politically libertarian social conservatives to be both. Government bans might be one proposed method of achieving socially conservative goals, but libertarians who also consider themselves social conservatives might counter that government bans are only counterproductive towards those goals.
    Nevertheless, I’m willing to accept a definition of social conservative views for the purpose of this discussion which takes for granted the notion that government force is THE way to achieve its goals.

    According to you, that makes it nationalist and progressive. .But like your definition of nationalism, your definition of progressivism seems to merely be political government, whereby government force is THE way to achieve ones goals, whatever those goals happen to be.

    Please explain how, if at all, you think nationalism and progressivism differ. As best I can tell, your definition of both is a synonym, meaning the willingness to use government force to achieve any sort of goal, therefore imposing some group’s values on others. If you believe these things differ, how do they differ? Please provide examples of progressivism that is not nationalist and nationalism that is not progressive.

    Why is nationalism right wing? What is left wing progressivism, and how is it not nationalist, as you define nationalism? Please provide examples.

    Again, I’ll address the rest later.

  101. I disagree with the contention that women voting has nothing to do with social, cultural, or traditional conservative views one way or the other. The traditional position is that the man is the head of the household, that men and women have different roles, and that the man represents the family in political affairs among other things. Traditional views hold women as subordinate to men. Women voting is part of feminism (first wave), which is leftist because it is egalitarian.

    The fundamental basis of leftism is egalitarianism. The fundamental basis of rightism is natural hierarchy, tradition, and faith. Extending rights to women, and extending voting rights in general, are both clearly historically specially liberal, progressive positions.

    You can look at arguments for and against women voting at the time, who made them, and why. It’s inescapable that women voting was the socially liberal, progressive position, and that the traditional, culturally and social conservative position was opposed to it.

    I’d also question your definition of socially conservative as exclusively Christian and perhaps Jewish. Muslims, Hindus, Confucians, Shintoists etc can be socially conservative. Even atheists can be socially conservative if they agree with the general cultural tenets of religious conservatism, particularly if they agree those should be enforced by government. Social conservatives of different religious traditions may very on the specifics of what is moral and immoral, but they tend to have basic agreement on the broader outlines.

    Again, more later.

  102. I suppose I should provide some definitions, as you requested.

    Leftism is essentially egalitarianism.

    Rightism is adherence to hierarchy, tradition, faith, and religiously based concepts of morality.

    Conservativism is reluctance to change, often conflated with rightism.

    Progressivism is eagerness to change, usually towards egalitarianism, away from rightist tradition and hierarchy. Progressivism generally posits that change away from these things is positive and inevitable.

    Liberalism is freedom from tradition, hierarchy, and faith, often closely linked to leftism and progressivism. Classical liberalism largely eschews government force, whereas progressive liberalism embraces it to achieve egalitarian goals, often conflating them with social freedom (libertinism) as well as economic freedom for the proletariat.

    Nationalism: the idea of political power or sovereignty for a nation, which can be defined on ethnic terms or civic political terms. Nationalism is usually associated with a national territory, sometimes historically or aspirationally or both, and sometimes extant. It can exist in contrast to globalism, cosmopolitanism, individualism, or regionalism at the local level. Nationalism can be right wing or left wing.

    Still more later.

  103. There are leftist and rightist arguments for prostitution prohibition, as Jim admitted in the last round at 9:28 pm yesterday, but not the previous round when he said prostitution prohibition can only be social conservative or rightist July 15 at 6:08 pm. He also now says there can be leftist or rightist arguments for or against alcohol prohibition, as I’ve said all along.

    He’s correct that prohibition party platforms frequently mentioned religious morality. That only.means that a majority of the small number of people actively involved in putting together those platforms had those preferences. The only thing everyone in favor of prohibition had in common was that one issue. It wasn’t inherently a socially conservative issue then or now. Some of the people who supported were and are social conservatives on other issues. Some were and now are not. Some social conservatives support banning prostitution, drugs, and or alcohol. Some do not, but rather believe other solutions to those problems would work better.

    Jims imugr link is too small font to read. When increased in size to be legible it becomes too blurry to read. Is there another version which doesn’t do that? I’m using chrome in android if that helps.

  104. Regarding social conservative abandonment of traditional cultural freedom I don’t think we abandon it. For instance, few social conservatives argue against the freedom of religion. Granted there are some, just as there was a conservative argument against during and shortly after the American revolution. However, mainstream social conservatives are for every cultural freedom that existed throughout most of American history. Prostitution may be an exception, although I don’t think it was ever actually legal, but it’s true that it was tacitly tolerated in many places .

    As I mentioned there are socially conservative arguments for and against legal prostitution, drugs, and alcohol. It’s not true that there are no socially conservative arguments against prohibition ; I listed a number of them yesterday, or last round.

  105. Liberal arguments for prohibition?

    Drugs and alcohol disproportionately hurt poor, minorities, women, and children of addicts.

    Reduce crime and corruption (ironically also used as an argument against – disagreement on facts)

    curbing domestic violence

    Improving public health

    Etc.

  106. I’m tired of scrolling up and down. Let me know if there’s anything I did not address.

    I’m already familiar with the Nolan chart model. It’s not entirely unuseful, but it’s definitely an oversimplified chart. I think in the 21st century the left is less socially tolerant, and more eager to enforce their social preferences on everyone, than the right. Religious liberty is primarily a right wing issue. “Woke” progressives are not tolerant of people who aren’t, and not big fans of free speech. I would say that right now the right is libertarian than the left on social as well as economic issues.

    Freedom of immigration might be a libertarian issue in a laissez faire economy, but not in a welfare state where burdens to taxpayers increase. I’d part company with libertarians on the issue for other reasons if the welfare state disappeared, but many libertarians agree with me for the time being due to the welfare state.

    I think it would be constructive for Jim to look over the questions I asked throughout the discussion and address the ones he hasn’t, or hopefully it would be.

  107. Butchered towards end of second paragraph at 7:44 : I believe the right is now more socially libertarian than the left. That does not mean we are fully socially libertarian. However, there are fusionist arguments which reconcile both to a large extent. Reconciliation of libertarians with the left is increasingly untenable when the left is more and more stridently “woke” or “politically correct” and more and more openly socialist. Not only do they want government to control everything economically, they want to enforce their social preferences on everyone and don’t tolerate freedom of speech, religion, press, thought etc when it disagrees with them.

  108. I’ll grant one point to Jim, there were some people who opposed women voting for reasons that were not socially conservative. By and large though, social conservative views of the time had a lot to do with it. Wiki article on women’s rights leaves no doubt that not having women in government / politics is the more traditional position. Are there any liberals or leftists or progressives who want to disenfranchise women, other than ones who just want a dictatorship? I have not heard of any. Whereas, the American Conservative will still nowadays run an article for repealing women’s voting rights, by a woman no less :

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-feminism-failed/

  111. Liberalism (Classical) doesn’t use the government to impose its values on others. It seeks to stop the government from interfering in society. Stopping the government (or other’s use of government) from imposing values is not in itself imposing values. Individual people are still free to hold whatever values they wish.

    I did address socialist nationalism. I specifically mentioned Stalinism. I did not feel a need to address every single group you mentioned. It would be redundant. And the way I addressed it was that, when a group seeks to control both the left sphere and the right sphere, it moves South on a diamond shaped political map, into the Totalitarian quadrant.

    See: https://i.imgur.com/AZt45Cc.png

    (I checked this link with Firefox and Edge. It works fine. Don’t use ctrl+ to increase the size, just click once on the image.) Maybe it doesn’t work well if you’re on mobile? I only use a desktop.

    I have already agreed with you on the Social Conservative dress point. I explained that we had a simple miscommunication and that I was talking about the people who opposed women’s suffrage not having a direct line to today’s Social Conservatives. Those who sought to restrict dress do.

    All nationalists are progressive (in the areas in which they seek to use the government to impose their values on others), but not all progressives are nationalists. As I said, right-progressives (nationalists) are focused on economic, cultural, or social stability. Left-progressives are focused on economic, cultural, or political equality.

    So, advocating “free” healthcare or economic redistribution is left-progressive. Advocating a ban on prostitution or immigration restrictions is right-progressive (nationalist).

    An example of leftists which aren’t progressive would be the communists, who are stateless, or voluntary socialist communes, even if they have a government.

    We mostly agree on what is the left and right. You say the fundamental basis of leftism is egalitarianism. I said it’s economic, social, and political equality. You said the fundamental basis of rightism is natural hierarchy, tradition, and faith. I said it’s nationalism which divides the world into in-groups and out-groups and uses government to elevate the in-group or exclude out-groups (enforce a hierarchy), or enforce its values on the out-groups (its traditions and faith.)

    Extending the right to vote to women COULD be liberal or left-progressive, but it also COULD be right-progressive if the nation set is defined to include women and exclude others. It wasn’t an issue that had clearly defined support along ideological lines. I’ve given you examples of some of the arguments opposing women’s right to vote which did not come from social conservatives. I even name-dropped Emma Goldman, who was a left-anarchist, atheist, advocate of free-love, and critic of marriage.

    Hindus and Shintoists can only be Social Conservatives IN THE US if they agree with the Judeo-Christian worldview. Other countries, I am sure, have their own versions which are not Christian.

    The Prohibition Party’s core principle, the banning of alcohol, would exclude it from your definition of Progressivism. It wasn’t about egalitarianism.

    I have a minor quibble with your labeling of Classical Liberalism and Progressive Liberalism. I use the terms Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism. But, I agree that Modern Liberalism embraces some aspects of progressivism. I would disagree a bit more strongly with your description. Liberalism is only freedom from government enforced tradition, hierarchy, and faith. As our socialist friends love to point out, Liberalism accepts private hierarchy in business, it fully embraces religious freedom, and someone can practice whatever traditions they like – on their own property. Modern Liberalism is largely the same, except it sacrifices some ideological purity and embraces progressivism in an effort to take the edge off of Classical Liberalism.

    So, while some types of Nationalism might favor closed borders and Classical Liberalism favors open borders, Modern Liberals would call for generally open borders, but maybe screen for criminals and diseases. Or, while a Totalitarian might try to ban all guns, and Classical Liberalism supports the right of anyone to possess a gun, Modern Liberals would say most people can own guns, but let’s screen for criminals and set minimum age requirements.

    My comment at 6:08 was in the context of discussing the immoral behavior prohibitions pushed by social conservatives. It does not say that a left-progressive ideology could not come to the same conclusion via a different path. You assumed too much.

    Your comment listing “Liberal arguments for prohibition” are not liberal arguments. They are progressive arguments.

    If you think I am arguing that the left-progressives are in any way better than the right, you are mistaken. I agree that the left-progressives are intolerant of speech, as you point out as an example. They advocate hate-speech laws, laws restricting political spending, equal time laws, etc.

    However, libertarians only tolerated the right for economic reasons. Trump blew that up with his trade war and extreme position on immigration, to say nothing of his insurrection attempt. The libertarian alliance with the right is done. We still don’t like the left… but in relative terms, they are not as disagreeable as they once were.

  112. Interesting taxonomy, and rather unusual in my experience, at least in parts. I also use a mobile device and can’t read your image, as Pat explained. Clicking on it does nothing. I can expand it with my fingers but it becomes too blurred.

    I’m a conservative, not a libertarian, for a variety of reasons. However, I’ve discussed issues with many libertarians who are more eager than ever to ally with the right. If I’m not mistaken one branch of them took over the US libertarian party and most of its state affiliates last year. Many others are Republicans. It’s also common for European libertarians to be quite right wing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.