Talk:Right-wing politics/Archive 2

message: I cleaned up the list of right-wing political parties for the USA.  It may be true that the groups I deleted might be "right-wing", but NONE OF THEM AT ALL were actual political parties.  Either they are merely a faction within a political party (Log-Cabin Republicanc) or they are not political parties at all (all the rest).  They may be politial PRESSURE GROUPS, but they are not political parties.  They do not field candidates for office, and in the USA, THAT is what primarily distinguishes a political party from any other organization that happens to have a political slant. Dogface 15:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaned up US Political Party List

message: The war has been, and still is, generally supported by Americans . I agree that support has declined, but it is not a one sided issue. If it were, we'd probably have Howard Dean or someone even farther left as the democratic candidate, not Kerry. Sam [Spade] 19:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your concerns generally, but would explain most of what your complaining about as based in an excessive focus on current events. Sometimes it is easier to focus on the news of the day (in  your local newspaper) than the larger, meta-picture. IMO the large, meta-picture is that the left-right axis is a flase dicotomy, providing more confusion that it releives. Unfortunately, we are in the business of cataloging information, not scripting the way people think and speak, so there is clearly a need for an article on "right wing", as useless a the concept is IMO. In conclusion, be bold! Sam [Spade] 21:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  War support 

message: This article needs to discuss more coherenatly the "Far-right", and also needs more international information. Its very Americentric. Sam [Spade] 22:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Far-right]] 

message: A common justification to the military operations is the beliefe that that it is not enough to enhance security checks on the borders, and that the only way to reduce terrorist threats are to hit the terrorists in their own territory. Since many terrorists group recieve funding, weapons, trainings and shelter in foreign countries (mainly in the Middle East and northern Africa) it is essential to damage their logistic infrastructure and attack them in their "save haven". The military campaign - which include a military ground assult or air bombing over a foreign country - is accompanied by legal measures in order to stop terror's funding from civilians in friendly states. 
:This is actually a good paragraph, but I think its not needed in this article. How about you merge it into "war on terror", or some such? Sam [Spade] 16:38, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from article 

message: Mihnea, I agree with the substance of your recent edits, but for some citations would really be in order. Otherwise, we are basically smuggling POV into the article. There are three places that concern me in this respect; italics in the following are mine, highlighting this issue:
*"some thinkers, both of the left and the right, see this as a worrying tendency"
*"Critics argue that it is inappropriate to equate every dictator in the world with Hitler..."
*"Many groups on the left agree with the ideal of spreading democracy and freedom, but disagree with the methods employed by the right."
Jmabel 23:04, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
:Apologies for stepping into the midst of the War on Terror fight, but the phrasing seemed awkward so I thought I'd give it a shot.Drernie 21:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needing citations 

message: I was using the Classical liberal definition, not the American Liberal definition. I was also using the term "liberal" in another way, the meanings of 
# Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
# Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
# Not strict or literal; loose or approximate
Bush gives freely to corporations (esp. Halliburton), and generally opposes restrictions. Reagan was also practically the anti-thesis of conservative, perhaps in even more ways than Bush. I hope I proved my point, which is that these terms "Liberal" and "conservative" have lost almost all concensus meaning. Sam Spade Wants you to vote! 20:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no, I don't agree with your point.  People do use these terms in public discourse, and the meaning seems to have a rough consensus among the general public (outside of those involved in this discussion).  It's just that the meaning has evolved over time, and that the meaning depends a bit on context, as in the social vs economic discussion above.  Calling Reagan the anti-thesis of conservative is all well and good under some academic definitions.  But it's clearly not correct under common usage of the word.  Wolfman 20:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your quite correct, by common usage Reagan was a moderate conservative, and Bush is a somewhat extreme conservative. Thats mainly due to how their viewed by their opposition, and the circumstances they find themselves in IMO, but I'm pretty sure its the case. Sam Spade Wants you to vote! 20:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I was using the Classical liberal definition, not the American Liberal definition.(Says Sam Spade)
Oh? Well heavy government spending is contrary to the classical liberal position. The classical liberal position is also very secular (anti-clerical) which Bush is not. My understanding as well is that classical liberals (at least not if you watch continental European liberals who are in the same mould) favour the negotiation of international treaties and regimes and compliance with those arrangements while Bush has been completely unilateralist in his approach and has ignored or rejected treaties which would inhibit the actions of his Administration. 
As for your other examples, they are non-political senses of the term liberal, using them in a political discussion is unadvisable since it can only create confusion. AndyL 23:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: While heavy deficit spending is traditionally against the classical liberal values, I think they would make exceptions to address unfair market imbalances such as that caused by the pegging of the PRc currency against the dollar and the Japanese government interventions to support the dollar as I mentioned above (search keynsian).  The deficit spending and accomodative monetary policy, were both attempts by the government to combat foreign government interference in the markets that was hurting the U.S. economy and employment.  Bush's most important conservative achievements were the reduction in the double tax on dividends (too bad he did not succeed in eliminating it), and the general tax reduction.  They reflect the right's superior intellectual understanding of the non-linear nature of the economy, that by lowering taxes, increased economic growth will eventually benefit all more than the initial lost revenue and perhaps increase in debt burden (especially at today's low interest rates, and paying back in tomorrows cheaper dollars).--Silverback 00:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Is that so?  I suppose we should lower taxes to zero then, because growth will make up for the lost revenue.  All empirical evidence I have seen shows that we are nowhere near the downward sloping portion of the tax-revenue (Laffer) curve. Wolfman 02:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Government spending levels and the scope of federal involvement has definitely moved to the left, which is why I find this idea that Bush is some kind of right-wing extremist laughable.  Surprisingly keynes as much as conservatives still harbor a knee jerk reaction to him, has won the intellectual day.  We do use liquidity and deficit spending to smooth over economic downturns and crises, we just aren't as "conservative" as Keyes when it comes to building up surpluses in better economic times, but perhaps he did not anticipate the philosophy of a continuing inflationary environment that keeps debt burdens shrinking to managable levels, while maximizing growth to create a wealth level that raises all ships and gives us more resources to deal with problems that arise.--Silverback 02:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No one believes in short-run fiscal policy to control business cycles anymore.  Certainly not the Fed.  Certainly close to no academic economits.  It's all monetary policy now.  Of course, fiscal policy is important for long growth or for tremendous shocks like the great depression.  But fiscal policy is way too slow to affect garden-variety modern business cycles.  The tax cuts were clearly not designed for short-run stimulation. Wolfman 02:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There was criticism that the tax cuts could have been designed to have a quicker short term stimulous effect by targeting the part of the population that would save less of it.  The low interest rate inspired mortgage refinicing boom, tapping equity wealth was probably more stimulative in the short term.  The tax cuts were more long term structural reforms.  The proposals for the new term are even more ambitious, and may get the government out of taxing savings and capital formation at all.--Silverback 02:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, and the low interest rates were a function of monetary, not fiscal policy.  That has relatively little to do with Keynes and much to do with Friedman.  As to your previous comment about Keynes not understanding growth, I would argue that you very much misunderstand Keynes. Wolfman 02:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment was not about his understanding, he was brilliant and would understand the current situation, I said "anticipate", and I meant inflation not growth, although I may not have make that clear.  I don't think he anticipated the extent to which we tolerate and even use inflation today, although, he may have been ahead of his time to an extent I am unaware of.  Most economists of the time would abhor the debasing of the currency, but today's global pattern of floating rates, pegs and manipulations call for more sophisticated strategies.  The principles may still be valid but have a new sense in this environment.--Silverback 03:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What I meant