Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
But the larger question is: Are we, as a country, failing to adapt to changing conditions?
Oh sure. The competitive parts of our markets are . . . the young entrepreneurs, technology, etc. Unskilled Labor is taking a beating, as you rightly remarked. But labor has to acquire the new skills necessary to meet the challenge of the digital, mobile, global age. The blacksmith had to learn tool making when the internal combustion engine came along. Unfortunately, many workers are too old and poorly educated to change.
That could be, although when we're talking about industrial workers, it's not that their skills are outdated, as such jobs still exist and are needed overseas. They're just not needed here. All of the products which were once made in the "rust belt" are still made today, so the skills are still being used in this modern world, but they're just not used here in America. I don't think your blacksmith example is analogous to the situation faced by cities like Detroit.
The world still produces and buys automobiles, so if the "Motor City" isn't producing motors anymore, we have to ask ourselves why. It's not that cars are outdated or relics from the past, so there must be some other reason.
quote:
quote:
But why would you only mention "one of our major political parties" and not the other one? This kind of political partisanship is a contributing factor in what's going on today.
Ermmm. . . it is only one party that has refused to raise revenues and otherwise adopted obstructionism as a tactic within hours after the Obama inaugeration in 2008.
Both parties have a role in shaping and guiding American policy, and we're talking about the results of policies which have been going on for decades, starting long before 2008. I'll concede that Republicans have been more fiscally irresponsible and myopic than the Democrats, but only to a relative degree, since the Democrats have been there all along. Both parties are responsible for our current situation.
I don't even see much of an ideological difference here, since both parties use tax-and-spend to raise revenue and promote government spending. They're both equally fiscally irresponsible, with the only difference being who gets taxed and what they spend the money on. It's just a variation on the old Spoils System.
quote:
quote:
Also, you seem to know history well enough to know that in our representative democracy, we have had statesmen and visionaries who did look forward and planned for the future.
Seems to me that nothing much gets accomplished in history unless there are crises. Other than the warmongers the statesmen and visionaries are made by history, imo.
True, but sometimes a man's salt is tested in a crisis. The crisis itself doesn't make them into statesmen, since a crisis could just as easily make a man into a sniveling buffoon. Sometimes, just taking a stand as a strong leader with principles can bring about a crisis by those who would rather deal with someone without a backbone. Lincoln took a stand. FDR took a stand. While they didn't actually cause the crisis they were involved in, they saw that their duty was clear - and not every man would do what they did. Either one of them could have given in and buckled.
quote:
quote:
I don't think you're being disrespectful, so no worries. But the thing is, when you just use a label like "progressive delusion" without really elaborating or explaining what you mean, it's difficult for me to understand where you're coming from. It's not that I'm thin-skinned or easily insulted, but this particular tack just confuses me at times, since there are some things I honestly don't know what you mean or what you're talking about.
Apologies. I am atheist, progressive, left of center, support doctrines of social justice, support regulated markets vs govt planning, and I try to examine everything with deep skepticism. I write to test my own positions when I exchange messages with an intelligent poster. Anyway, that's what I am today. 
I can identify with some of that. I suppose part of what makes me who I am today is that I grew up during a time when just about everyone I knew was questioning and criticizing the government in one form or another.
I don't consider myself to be progressive, except perhaps on an economic/material level. I believe in fairness, equality, justice - a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. I'm a Keynesian when it comes to economic matters, as I think it can be an effective balance and compromise between the conflicting economic philosophies of Left and Right.
But apart from that, some progressives tend to come off a bit too "goody goody" at times. For people who like to smoke cigarettes, drink beer, have sugary sodas or fatty foods, the progressives can be a real pain in the ass. 
I'm vehemently opposed to any abuses of power, and the greater the power, the more vehement my opposition can be. In any battle between the Big Shots and the Little People, I freely admit that my sympathies lie with the Little People. The faces and ideologies might change from time to time, but it is what it is.
quote:
Progressive delusion lies in the belief that humankind and government can be improved. I remain skeptical. Nothing much has changed in human nature and social structure. There is still abundant evil and power disparity . . . and there always will be. But that doesn't mean it is acceptable. Or that we should remain silent.
Well, we have had some improvements over time. It's not like we're still living in the Middle Ages or anything like that. We don't burn people for heresy or believe that our leaders are divine, not anymore. I would say that's some progress.
But I take your general point, and I can see what you mean. But that might beg the question, why be a progressive at all? Sometimes, I think that system-builders are going about things the wrong way. Whether conservative or liberal, communist or capitalist, ideologues always seem to think that it's "the system." Their perspective is ostensibly that the system is to blame, and if only we had a better system, things would be alright. So, they keep trying to build a better mousetrap, but it always seems to fall short of the mark.
In my view, it's not really the system as much as it is the people. In theory, any political system or theory can work just fine if it's comprised of people solely focused on doing the right thing and working for the greater good. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way due to the deficiencies of humanity. But not everyone is the same. Some people are good, some people are bad. In any human organization, it's up to the leadership to identify and weed out the bad apples. In a democracy, it's up to the voters to do that. It's simple, but not easy.
There are some things that we could do - even if we realize that we can't eliminate the abundant evil and power disparity that you say will always be with us. One thing is that we could make it easier to fire government employees. Impose harsh punishments on anyone in government caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Make an example of them and send a clear message to those who would violate the public trust.
I don't even see this as an ideological difference. No matter if one is Left or Right, nobody likes a thief - at least not on paper anyway.
quote:
quote:
I don't think the left and center are as unarmed as you might think. The right may get the reputation for it, but guns are a universal tool used by all factions.
As far as I know at the present day it is only anti-government right wingnuts who are running through the woods in camouflage and training with their weapons for the coming revolution . . . or apocalypse, whichever comes first.
There have been some of those guys around here in AZ, running around the vicinity of the US-Mexico border. They come and go and have been doing this for as long as I can remember, but they never really cause much more than a big fuss from time to time. Even in one of the reddest states in the Union, they never seem to amount to much.
There was one guy who wanted to have armed patrols in one of the more notorious drug smuggling corridors - a somewhat rugged and dangerous part of the AZ desert. The smugglers are armed too, and while I wouldn't necessarily call them "left," they might be considered anarchists of a different sort. I don't think anything actually happened, but some people were saying that the right-wing militia group in question was playing with fire, that they wouldn't have stood a chance against the heavily armed, hardened, and better financed drug cartels. It ended up that the head of that militia group flipped out one day, shot his family, then shot himself.
The pattern that I've observed is that, one way or another, these "wingnuts" just tend to self-destruct on their own. That doesn't mean that they're not dangerous to the unfortunates who happen to be innocent bystanders, but I don't really see them as any great danger to the government or America as a whole.
quote:
quote:
I'm not really sure what you expect, though. I recognize and appreciate the problem with armed militias, and I see what you're saying. But I tend to think of them more along the lines of street or biker gangs, and I guess I take the liberal "society-is-to-blame" approach
We have major differences then. Both on your innocent characterization of the gangs as well as the culpability of society. We shall have to agree to disagree.
I never said they were innocent. I still believe in law and order, but I just think we have to put these things into perspective. Cause and effect.
Have a great weekend.
|
RE: The Year in Hate and Extremism - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread