Best Defense of the Right I've Seen

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thanatoast, Oct 12, 2004.

  1. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #1
    And it's not really even a defense, just an explanation of how the other side thinks.

    I think the Right gets too caught up attacking the Left's positions to defend their own sometimes. Okay, with this latest administration a lot of the time. I'm sure the Left does its fair share, but let's face it, the Right is King of Dirty Politics.

    Interestingly, or perhaps not, the opinion presented here makes me more sympathetic to the Right's cause than any amount of "flip-flopper, Frenchie-loving" attacks. But I suppose asking the electorate as a whole to take a look from the other side of the aisle would be too much to ask.

    I also think this is the main problem with the entire US/ME - Christian/Islam crisis. Extremist idealogues on both sides refuse to admit that the others, though they may not be entirely correct, at least might have a point in what they're saying and a justifiable reason (from their point of view) of what they're doing.

    As long as both sides use fear (another thread that needs to be started) to divide the people of the world, nothing will get accomplished.

    Anyway, I've rambled long enough, here's the article that impressed me so much.
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    i think mr brooks scaling of domestic viewpoints to the international scene is weak in some ways.

    the rural/urban political differences are obvious, and i think the reasons are pretty obvious. i've been saying for some time that, logistical problems of geography aside, it would make sense for this country to split into two, along population density lines.

    though i agree w/ mr kerry that terrorism can be compared to gangs (i see the greatest commonality as disenfranchisement), i don't think that's enough to lend validity to mr brooks scaling.

    for example, when mr brooks talks about ruralites wanting gov't off their backs and out of their lives, that makes sense. but the scaling of that to the international scene, imo, results in isolationism. instead, we have bush projecting (forcing?) his "freedom values" onto the rest of the world.

    and, following, i think it's extremely naive of bush to assume that free people will live in harmony. is there any historical example that supports that? does he truly believe that (the supposedly free) americans live in harmony w/ each other?
     
  3. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #3
    Brooks is always saying how "there are two types of people etc.". It is his schtick. In this case to go along with his reasoning maybe the "red" states value "freedom" because when there are no people around it LOOKS more free. However, I have done some checking and America is not the freeest place in the world. In Australia people feel like they are more free. In Canada people feel like they are more free. Free from a lot of the worries we have here.

    THe other thing to note is that the blue states subsidize the red states. So they talk about freedom and low taxes but federal subsidies fuel the illusion.

    States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

    1. D.C. ($6.17)
    2. North Dakota ($2.03)
    3. New Mexico ($1.89)
    4. Mississippi ($1.84)
    5. Alaska ($1.82)
    6. West Virginia ($1.74)
    7. Montana ($1.64)
    8. Alabama ($1.61)
    9. South Dakota ($1.59)
    10. Arkansas ($1.53)

    In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):

    States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

    1. New Jersey ($0.62)
    2. Connecticut ($0.64)
    3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
    4. Nevada ($0.73)
    5. Illinois ($0.77)
    6. Minnesota ($0.77)
    7. Colorado ($0.79)
    8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
    9. California ($0.81)
    10. New York ($0.81)

    Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.
     
  4. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #4
    I also disagree with Mr Brooks here, although it is an interesting theory. Zim managed to point out most things I would've said (and probably better, I might add), but I would add the following small points:

    Although that theory might hold some water applied to traditional conservatism, the type of conservatism Bush adheres to and practices is a creature apart.

    There is the Neo-Conservatism, which is also very much about Internationalism/Balance of power, with the balance of the power going to the richest and most powerful.

    There is also the fact that many modern Conservatives (in Politics), both Neo- and of other stripes, are really Corporatists and/or Fascists dressed up in the pretty words of Traditional Conservative Values.

    Relatedly, we are also the leader in Global Capitalism, which has, for it's own ends, created such an interconnectedness between world markets/suppliers etc., that despite lip-service to the contrary, freedom, liberty and decentralization are only tolerated as long as it does not disturb the system and/or the bottom line.

    In an ever-shrinking world of resources and a ever-growing world population to consume those, the stakes are high. Those places which are now relatively undeveloped or underpopulated will find themselves unable to hide or defend themselves from the needs of modern humanity and the market. We are trending toward the type of world that Brooks describes as the province of Liberals - crowded urbanity, although it could very well become decentralized on a Global or National scale, along the model of Switzerland or Feudal Europe (two different possibilities).

    Considering all this, I am very much an advocate of Internationalism, because it is appropriate to the dire realities of the 21st Century and because it attempts to tie a country to a power larger than itself. Which as any Religious person will tell you, is good policy.

    I could go on, but I am already rambling...maybe later.
     
  5. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #5
    As far as over-arching theories go, I think Brooks has done a reasonable job defining the two competing world-views. All over-arching theories tend to break down in the finer details -- and that happens here, but it's hardly unexpected. Also, something to understand about Brooks is that he isn't what we'd call a "movement conservative" or a neo-con. While he prefers the conservative world-view, he doesn't try to make the case that other views lack a valid moral or intellectual basis.
     

Share This Page