America the centrist

[Emageht Tsoluoy]

I was thinking, how does the right change politics in america to be more right?

How does the left change politics in america to be more left?

optimally, i think that america would work best in a centrist position,
but when i think about it, the "right" is an aggressive-war machine that uses religion, bombs, and oppression to make its point.

and it works, because:aggression.

how would the left be best suited to swing things more their way?
its not like the 60's when flowers could be stuck in rifle barrels at protests...
protests of today are in their own "protest zones" far, far, FAR away from any real issue or event they are protesting for...
people that violate those specially segregated zones, are pepper sprayed, tasered, arrested and/or 'accidentally' killed by police too eager to spill blood instead of letting rational peaceful discourse play itself out.

at what point can the left effect change without resorting to violence themselves, and by doing so, wont that make them have more in common with what they are fighting against, than what they are trying to change?

/edit
I can't tell my left from right.

[Independent voter]

Working class people used to vote for Democrats, now a lot of them vote Republican. If you can figure out why that happened you'll have your answer.

[Kujako]

Lets start by defining some terms. Which "left" are you referring to? The right of center Democrats, or actual left of center politicians that are almost nonexistent in the US?

[TheConsciousness]

but when i think about it, the "left" is an aggressive-war machine that uses religion, bombs, and oppression to make its point.

I think you mean the "right". The left is considered the secular, educated group in the United States.

how would the right be best suited to swing things more their way?

The problem with the "right" is that a strong majority of their supporters are band wagoners. I actually studied at my time in college: the "right" in America take pride in sticking together on non-issues. They come together over subjects like Chevy trucks, denying that the South was racist, and country music.

[Emageht Tsoluoy]

Lets start by defining some terms. Which "left" are you referring to? The right of center Democrats, or actual left of center politicians that are almost nonexistent in the US?

Nonexistant Left of Center politicians.

Today's "Left" and "Right" are actually "Far Right" and "Way the fuck farther Right"

- - - Updated - - -

I think you mean the "right". The left is considered the secular, educated group in the United States.

yep, changed

[Kujako]

I think the normal course of politics over time is to move to the right. Think of it like this, we start on the left with the libertarian outlook of "do what ever you want". But some people can't be trusted with true freedom, so we have to start making laws. "do what ever you want, but no using a catapult to fire stray dogs at passing busses". And to keep things fair, we have to apply these laws and regulations to everyone, not just the people who are acting irresponsibly. Fast forward 100 years and end up with a lot of authoritarian government to try to stop a small number of citizens from acting like morons and endangering themselves and others.

[TheConsciousness]

I think the normal course of politics over time is to move to the right. Think of it like this, we start on the left with the libertarian outlook of "do what ever you want". But some people can't be trusted with true freedom, so we have to start making laws. "do what ever you want, but no using a catapult to fire stray dogs at passing busses". And to keep things fair, we have to apply these laws and regulations to everyone, not just the people who are acting irresponsibly. Fast forward 100 years and end up with a lot of authoritarian government to try to stop a small number of citizens from acting like morons and endangering themselves and others.

But yet somehow the right complains every time a new law is made, claiming "big government is taking away our freedoms."

[Kujako]

But yet somehow the right complains every time a new law is made, claiming "big government is taking away our freedoms."

Right... but then they go onto try and pass heavy handed laws like voter id regulations, mandatory trans vaginal ultrasounds, putting a fence around the country, etc. Pay attention to what they do, not what they complain about the other side doing.

[Tock20]

The best answer, need people to care about politics and vote beyond the dem/rep lines.

[Felya]

Working class people used to vote for Democrats, now a lot of them vote Republican. If you can figure out why that happened you'll have your answer.

This sort of propoganda is why centrist ideology is hard to push forward. Many, if not most, find extremes more appealing or at least easier to generate a reaction.

[Yvaelle]

Working class people used to vote for Democrats, now a lot of them vote Republican. If you can figure out why that happened you'll have your answer.

Rupert Murdoch started the Fox News channel in 1996. Then Roger Ailes became the chairman in 2005.

Roger's (Nixon and both Bushes media advisor) view on political coverage is called Orchestra Pit Theory:

"If you have two guys on a stage and one guy says, 'I have a solution to the Middle East problem,' and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?"

When you make politics about sensationalism, rather than substance, you can make perceived reality into anything you want: so long as you make your perceived reality the most vibrant memory, the simplest quip, the shortest soundbite.

The only way for the left to try to drag the discussion back toward neutral ground is to beat Fox at it's own game - and that requires giving up rationality and journalistic ethics. That's harder for the left to do than the right, because reactionary and conservative politics are a feeling - so long as the feeling of the appeal to tradition (conservativism) persists (or defiance of hippie liberal communists, in the case of reactionaries), the message (or the line in the sand, or the side of the argument) can be virtually anything.

The short answer is that the left cannot play this game as effectively as the right. MSNBC wants to stoop to Fox's level, they think they can go toe-to-toe in the nonsense department and come out equal - but when they do it their viewers just think they sound silly, while when Fox does it - it may still feel right. In either case though, both stray from objectivity to try to pull politics in their direction: it has ceased to be about identifying truth, and become about winning a debate by whatever rhetorical trick possible. Reality be damned.

[Kujako]

Working class people used to vote for Democrats, now a lot of them vote Republican. If you can figure out why that happened you'll have your answer.

Futurama said it well...

[Felya]

But yet somehow the right complains every time a new law is made, claiming "big government is taking away our freedoms."

Because big or small government are not definable terms. They are so abstract, that I've seen people claim Monarchy is the largest government you can have. It's extreme rhetoric aimed at an emotional response, instead of a logical one.

[zenkai]

I was thinking, how does the right change politics in america to be more right?

How does the left change politics in america to be more left?

optimally, i think that america would work best in a centrist position,
but when i think about it, the "right" is an aggressive-war machine that uses religion, bombs, and oppression to make its point.

and it works, because:aggression.

how would the left be best suited to swing things more their way?
its not like the 60's when flowers could be stuck in rifle barrels at protests...
protests of today are in their own "protest zones" far, far, FAR away from any real issue or event they are protesting for...
people that violate those specially segregated zones, are pepper sprayed, tasered, arrested and/or 'accidentally' killed by police too eager to spill blood instead of letting rational peaceful discourse play itself out.

at what point can the left effect change without resorting to violence themselves, and by doing so, wont that make them have more in common with what they are fighting against, than what they are trying to change?

/edit
I can't tell my left from right.

If all the far left democrats and far right republicans would die in a fire, America would be a much better place

[Kujako]

Because big or small government are not definable terms. They are so abstract, that I've seen people claim Monarchy is the largest government you can have. It's extreme rhetoric aimed at an emotional response, instead of a logical one.

The definition seems to be "small government is you stop telling me what to do and start doing what I tell you to do".

- - - Updated - - -

If all the far left democrats and far right republicans would die in a fire, America would be a much better place

I challenge you to name a "far left democrat".

[zenkai]

Rupert Murdoch started the Fox News channel in 1996. Then Roger Ailes became the chairman in 2005.

Roger's (Nixon and both Bushes media advisor) view on political coverage is called Orchestra Pit Theory:

"If you have two guys on a stage and one guy says, 'I have a solution to the Middle East problem,' and the other guy falls in the orchestra pit, who do you think is going to be on the evening news?"

When you make politics about sensationalism, rather than substance, you can make perceived reality into anything you want: so long as you make your perceived reality the most vibrant memory, the simplest quip, the shortest soundbite.

The only way for the left to try to drag the discussion back toward neutral ground is to beat Fox at it's own game - and that requires giving up rationality and journalistic ethics. That's harder for the left to do than the right, because reactionary and conservative politics are a feeling - so long as the feeling of the appeal to tradition (conservativism) persists (or defiance of hippie liberal communists, in the case of reactionaries), the message (or the line in the sand, or the side of the argument) can be virtually anything.

The short answer is that the left cannot play this game as effectively as the right. MSNBC wants to stoop to Fox's level, they think they can go toe-to-toe in the nonsense department and come out equal - but when they do it their viewers just think they sound silly, while when Fox does it - it may still feel right. In either case though, both stray from objectivity to try to pull politics in their direction: it has ceased to be about identifying truth, and become about winning a debate by whatever rhetorical trick possible. Reality be damned.

Fox is successful because all major media leans left, Fox is the only place you can get the other side of the story, for those of us who are interested in the TRUTH we are forced to read from multiple media sources.

Also when I see Fox talk about hot topics, they always put someone on the opposite side on and give them plenty of speaking time, where as on places like MSBNC they are just in a room full of people that all agree with each other

- - - Updated - - -

The definition seems to be "small government is you stop telling me what to do and start doing what I tell you to do".

- - - Updated - - -

I challenge you to name a "far left democrat".

LOL! You are you serious? The whole freaking congress is so polar opposite they can't agree on anything!

[Kujako]

Fox is successful because all major media leans left, Fox is the only place you can get the other side of the story, for those of us who are interested in the TRUTH we are forced to read from multiple media sources.

This is demonstrably not true, but it is often what we hear from the right leaning people who turn to Fox for bias confirmation.

Many news networks are very slightly left of the populace center (which is right of actual political center) while Fox is FAR to the right.



- - - Updated - - -

LOL! You are you serious? The whole freaking congress is so polar opposite they can't agree on anything!

Then name one "far left democrat". Cause I can't think of any. All are right of center.

[Emageht Tsoluoy]

If all the far left democrats and far right republicans would die in a fire, America would be a much better place

But then the only people left will be anyone not a democrat or republican.

[Felya]

LOL! You are you serious? The whole freaking congress is so polar opposite they can't agree on anything!

The fact they can't agree on anything does not depend on their extreme opposites, but the D and R next to their names. There are many differances, but none of them are what I'd call extreme.

[Independent voter]

Rupert Murdoch started the Fox News channel in 1996. Then Roger Ailes became the chairman in 2005.

Pew Research Group said Fox News was a big thing. They lied without really lying. Fox News is the biggest cable news company, that's true but it's like saying "among people who drive Volkswagens in the US, most prefer white Volkswagens." Not many people in the US drive Volkswagens.

Fox News has 1.7 million views. Meanwhile the old broadcast news companies look like


NBC ABC CBS
• Total Viewers: 7,569,000 7,468,000 6,535,000

So Fox News has a tiny fraction of US news viewership.