Politics Is centrism the most sensible position to take politically?

[HurleyHepsHird]

Did it rough, huh?

*shrugs*

South Freo for example is a selective public school, or at least it was (for sports).

The "selective" part won't stop you getting your head kicked in (note that wasn't my highschool). I grew up in a shitty working class neighbourhood, we suffered two home invasions and another break in before I had left primary school.

I don't know anybody from my peer group who wasn't at least harrassed by the cops, chased by deros, or got beat the hell up more than once during primary school. I probably got into more fights than I could count, and I was a weedy little art kid. Yet it wasn't a bad school academically. Quite a number of my year group were accepted on scholarships or to selective schools and of those I still keep in contact with, there's a politician, a couple of scientists, engineers a doctor etc.

A pretty typical experience for a lot of Aussie children.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Rubbish. Neither Bill or Barack were centrists- indeed the Dems ended up so far left it got Hillary- a misandrist, (funny how BF's spellcheck won't include that word.....) arrogant and elitist identitarian.

Its the far left that led to the far right. Tit for tat in the hatred and bigotry stakes.

Now we have Warren, Biden, Sanders et. al up against Trump (at least there are some semi-decent candidates like Yang). Ultimately, its going to be four more years of shite regardless.

You are correct, both Clinton and Obama were not what would be considered centrists at least internationally, they were rightwing neoliberal hawks.

The third way CDU (Merkel's party) which blends centre right conservatism and Rhine model social democracy is far closer to the centrist ideal.

 

[Deadpool]

*shrugs*

South Freo for example is a selective public school, or at least it was (for sports).

The "selective" part won't stop you getting your head kicked in (note that wasn't my highschool). I grew up in a shitty working class neighbourhood, we suffered two home invasions and another break in before I had left primary school.

I don't know anybody from my peer group who wasn't at least harrassed by the cops, chased by deros, or got beat the hell up more than once during primary school. I probably got into more fights than I could count, and I was a weedy little art kid. Yet it wasn't a bad school academically. Quite a number of my year group were accepted on scholarships or to selective schools and of those I still keep in contact with, there's a politician, a couple of scientists, engineers a doctor etc.

A pretty typical experience for a lot of Aussie children.

Try laying it on less thick, you might actually be believable.

The vast majority of far left types come from spoilt, upper middle class, two working parent families. Nothing you've said indicates you are any different.

You are correct, both Clinton and Obama were not what would be considered centrists at least internationally, they were rightwing neoliberal hawks.

The third way CDU (Merkel's party) which blends centre right conservatism and Rhine model social democracy is far closer to the centrist ideal.

Well, you are a far left extremist, of course you misidentify virtually everything as "right"

 

[Deadpool]

What I said was that the removal of compulsory funding for the student union removed any and all participants with an active interest in politics beyond the mundane or the excessive from uni politics, and this joined a trend which accompanied the upswing in neoconservatism within society away from interest in political matters.

Also, you have a habit of reading things between the lines, and assuming things about me as a consequence which allow you to dismiss what I'm saying. Is that something you do to everyone, or simply those you disagree with?
Read the above. I'm not saying it a fourth time.

Wow, you get pissy and arrogant real quick when you get challenged, don't you?

You haven't provided anything but a loose theory. Even you admit it's based on flimsy sources. Correlation does not mean causation. I'm not repeating myself either.

It's not my fault that you try and talk in riddles and just aren't intelligent enough to pull it off.

No, what I've done is taken a general social/economic theory during its greatest upswing in history - as it was ideologically proven 'right' by Thatcher/Reagan's 'successes' coupled with the failure of the USSR - and applied its doctrines and how they apply to a system deprived of funding and therefore relevance.

I've not conflated neoconservatism with anything whatsoever, and I stand by my statement that centrism, purely down the middle ideological fence sitting, does not exist.

You have conflated neoconservatism with centrism. You think that centrism doesn't exist and that it's just neoconservatism by another name. I disagree.

Are you not sufficiently individualist to believe yourself different from someone else?

Thank you Socrates.

Really? I don't see that, as a raging 'leftist'.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.
Is that something you do to everyone, or simply those you disagree with?

I've got a number of opinions on a wide range of things that don't subscribe to what you'd consider left wing thought, or at least not modern left wing thought. There have been multiple times on here where I've been having arguments with people - who approached the thing like I would just subscribe to the same paradigms that they thought membership of the Leftists club came with - and completely either flipped things on them or agreed with them. It isn't difficult to arrive at different conclusions from the same sources.

Depends on whether those sources are primary sources or "second and third hand" sources.

I think identity politics - for example - is a smokescreen devised of people with both excessive time and a victim complex coupled with a profound misreading of a number of key writers, and is propagated in Australia by a media mogul with the specific intention of dividing the left, keeping them fighting against each other.

How about instead of being a pseudo-intellectual that speaks in riddles, you actually name those "writers" and that "media mogul" so that I can actually assess whether this is a legimite crackpot theory or just a regular crackpot theory.

In case you misread what I wrote, I said agree with caveats; namely, with both sides approaches to violence. However, I rather think that's got more to do with both sides regardless of ideals still being human beings driven to their logical extreme rather than all ideas leading to the same place when pushed so far.


How so?

Well, you never actually mentioned violence, its a pretty specific term (rather than "dangerous"- whatever that means). And what the hell is a "human being driven to their logical extreme" And I never said that ideas get pushed to the same place, but methods and attitudes. Try reading what I write before getting on your intellectual high horse mate.

You seem to posit centrism as being ideological fence sitting while doing exactly the same thing here. How ironic.

 

[Gethelred]

Wow, you get pissy and arrogant real quick when you get challenged, don't you?

You haven't provided anything but a loose theory. Even you admit it's based on flimsy sources. Correlation does not mean causation. I'm not repeating myself either.

It's not my fault that you try and talk in riddles and just aren't intelligent enough to pull it off.

You have conflated neoconservatism with centrism. You think that centrism doesn't exist and that it's just neoconservatism by another name. I disagree.


Thank Socrates.


Now you are putting words in my mouth.
Is that something you do to everyone, or simply those you disagree with?


Depends on whether those sources are primary sources or "second and third hand" sources.


How about instead of being a pseudo-intellectual that speaks in riddles, you actually name those "writers" and that "media mogul" so that I can actually assess whether this is a legimite crackpot theory or just a regular crackpot theory.


Well, you never actually mentioned violence, its a pretty specific term (rather than "dangerous"- whatever that means). And what the hell is a "human being driven to their logical extreme" And I never said that ideas get pushed to the same place, but methods and attitudes. Try reading what I write before getting on your intellectual high horse mate.

You seem to posit centrism as being ideological fence sitting while doing exactly the same thing here. How ironic.

I find it intensely ironic that this is your response here; you're telling me that I get pissy and arrogant amidst a rather pissy and arrogant response. I am also amused by how you've completely jumped the shark since your last post; you've gone from 'No offense' to offense intended.

Other than that, you've more or less ignored everything I posted, and you've determined an oppositional derogatory standpoint is the place to be. You accuse me of talking in riddles, yet you refuse to actually engage with things even when they're reasonably clear. Perhaps instead of insulting my intelligence - which is again deeply ironic, given your lack of comprehension and/or your inability to solve what you believe are pseudo-intellectual riddles - you could refrain from taking your intellectual bat and ball away the second you're challenged, hmm?

 

[AbrahamS]

If by centrist you mean someone that is slightly left on some topics, eg gun control, and slightly right on others, eg limiting immigration, then yes it isn't a bad position at all. Especially if it allows you to consider all sides of a discussion and not enter it with large partisan blinkers.

 

[Deadpool]

I find it intensely ironic that this is your response here; you're telling me that I get pissy and arrogant amidst a rather pissy and arrogant response. I am also amused by how you've completely jumped the shark since your last post; you've gone from 'No offense' to offense intended.

Other than that, you've more or less ignored everything I posted, and you've determined an oppositional derogatory standpoint is the place to be. You accuse me of talking in riddles, yet you refuse to actually engage with things even when they're reasonably clear. Perhaps instead of insulting my intelligence - which is again deeply ironic, given your lack of comprehension and/or your inability to solve what you believe are pseudo-intellectual riddles - you could refrain from taking your intellectual bat and ball away the second you're challenged, hmm?

Basically your response is "I know you are, you said you are, so what am I?"

You are the one who has been challenged and is walking away. You can't explain your ramblings, but you have the slight werewithall (if not the grace) to recognise it, so you devolve into condescension and insults.

Yep, someone just graduated with an Arts piece of paper.

You are right at home with the left wing loonies here, only took two posts to expose you.

 

[Deadpool]

If by centrist you mean someone that is slightly left on some topics, eg gun control, and slightly right on others, eg limiting immigration, then yes it isn't a bad position at all. Especially if it allows you to consider all sides of a discussion and not enter it with large partisan blinkers.

Spot on.

 

[Gethelred]

Basically your response is "I know you are, you said you are, so what am I?"

You are the one who has been challenged and is walking away. You can't explain your ramblings, but you have the slight werewithall (if not the grace) to recognise it, so you devolve into condescension and insults.

Yep, someone just graduated with an Arts piece of paper.

You are right at home with the left wing loonies here, only took two posts to expose you.

You've become smugger, more condescending and more insulting the longer this particular exchange has gone on, and you're accusing me of devolving into condescension and insults?

I am very much walking away. I proffered an opinion, I outlined why I thought that way; you asked for an expansion, which I provided, from which you proceeded to conclude things about me in order to dismiss what I said. There's not much to be learnt from this conversation proceeding much further.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Misandry is not a thing. It’s a conceptualising concept of the far right.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Deadpool]

Surely calling someone a school shooter, as HurleyHepsHird did to me, merits a day off at least Bigfooty, rather than just deleting the evidence (which I screenshotted anyway)

Come on.

 

[Deadpool]

Misandry is not a thing. It’s a conceptualising concept of the far right.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Evil cannot comprehend good.

Case in point.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Evil cannot comprehend good.

Case in point.

Yeah, that's it.

 

[Deadpool]

You've become smugger, more condescending and more insulting the longer this particular exchange has gone on, and you're accusing me of devolving into condescension and insults?

I am very much walking away. I proffered an opinion, I outlined why I thought that way; you asked for an expansion, which I provided, from which you proceeded to conclude things about me in order to dismiss what I said. There's not much to be learnt from this conversation proceeding much further.

You had the chance to back your opinion up with more than "second and third hand" sources

 

[Gethelred]

You had the chance to back your opinion up with more than "second and third hand" sources

... because you are the arbiter of all that is worthy and decent in the 'Is centrism the most sensible position to take politically?' Bigfooty thread? You get to decide what constitutes worthy conversation and worthwhile opinion?

It's funny, I don't see the moderator title below your name. Wonder why. You're so chipper and even tempered.

 

[rippersnipper]

There are no parties in Australia that cater for centrists. Every compass survey I have taken puts me right in the middle of Liberal and Labor, with a pretty big gap between the two. I cannot be the only one.

I just did it the other day and got the same, annoyingly. I thought I was actually fairly left with my responses too

 

[medusala]

I'm not much of an economist, but I tend to prefer his method over that of Hayek from a liberal perspective. The State has a role in regulating private life only in so far as it's reasonably needed to protect people from harm.

"Liberals only tolerate the State as a necessary evil. "

You have contradicted yourself in the space of two posts. Keynesian economics involves the state playing a far bigger role that simply protecting people from harm. He was all in favour of state intervention.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12143-009-9056-7

In the (1936) preface to the German edition of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Keynes contrasts his methodology with that of Classical laissez-faire economics. He also compares and contrasts his methodology with German economics, which members of the German Historical School had heavily influenced. Unfortunately, some view Keynes as arguing in this Preface that his theory could more deductively apply to fascism than to laissez-faire economies.

It's probably more accurate to say that I hold that the real truth lies somewhere between those two conflicting schools of liberal capitalist economic thought (Keynes v Hayek), and that each method has its advantages over the other, and we shouldnt rule one out out of hand.

No, Keynesian economics has failed repeatedly. In the real world we know it doesnt work. Further most wouldnt accept your conflicting schools as Keynes vs Austrian school rather Keynes vs neo classical. Many think Austrian school is way out on a limb and not mainstream.

basic but readable link

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/politics-of-economics/0/steps/30811

 

[Malifice]

"Liberals only tolerate the State as a necessary evil. "

You have contradicted yourself in the space of two posts. Keynesian economics involves the state playing a far bigger role that simply protecting people from harm. He was all in favour of state intervention.

So are you.

Havent you been arguing for State intervention 'in the National Interest' re Brexit?

Self interest isnt the same as the national interest.

Thats you saying the British State should intervene in the Market post Brexit 'in the national interest' is it not? I presume you support legislation (be it tarrifs or tax incentives or whatever) that would keep Aston Martin, Airbus and so forth (and all the other hundreds of Companies that are relocating out of the UK at a great rate of knots) in the UK right should Britain crash out without a deal.

Total Power he was arguing this for several pages wasnt he?

And in any event, Keynesian economics are designed solely to protect people from harm. It was literally developed during the Great Depression to stop (or buffer) something similar happening again. The whole point of Keynesian economics is to avoid (or mitigate the damage from) recessions and depressions.

Unless your argument is 'the Great Depression didnt harm anyone', or maybe 'the State has no role in economic policies that stave off or mitigate the damage from such events'?

Are you genuinely arguing the Liberal State should just sit back and let the Great Depression mk 2 happen again, or let the market totally fall off the edge of a cliff? Australia embraces a very Keynesian economic model (central reserve bank, stimulus packages when needed etc), and we were largely shielded from the worst of the GFC as a consequence!

 

[Total Power]

Thats you saying the British State should intervene in the Market post Brexit 'in the national interest' is it not? I presume you support legislation (be it tarrifs or tax incentives or whatever) that would keep Aston Martin, Airbus and so forth (and all the other hundreds of Companies that are relocating out of the UK at a great rate of knots) in the UK right should Britain crash out without a deal.

I find it fascinating, coming from an admirer of Thatcher. I wrote extensively in the EU thread so will not repeat the same thing about SM here.

I think its baffling that no one has properly called out Rees-Mogg on the fact that his father wrote a book called 'blood on the streets' specifically detailing how to make money from an economic crisis. Rees-Mogg is the most vocal proponent of a hard brexit without really saying why he supports it so ardently, aside from the odd glib 'taking back control' remark.

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if many of the Brexit campaign donors are positioning themselves to capitalise on the fall in GBP and the trashing of UK domestic stocks in the event of a no deal Brexit. Rees-Mogg's investment firm (now based in Ireland, how ironic) being one.

 

[Malifice]

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if many of the Brexit campaign donors are positioning themselves to capitalise on the fall in GBP and the trashing of UK domestic stocks in the event of a no deal Brexit. Rees-Mogg's investment firm (now based in Ireland, how ironic) being one.

And in the Brexit thread Meds even posted a quote from Smith about this particular 'Order of Men' who the State should never listen to (the Wealthy in the market), because all they seek to do is line their own pockets, at the expense of everyone else.

Hilariously he seemed to think the 'Order of men' whom the government should never listen to, was the government.

Never ceases to amaze me how often Adam Smith is misquoted and misunderstood by RWNJ's.

 

[medusala]

So are you.

Havent you been arguing for State intervention 'in the National Interest' re Brexit?

No. Brexit will free the UK from a heap of EU law like the social chapter.

Thats you saying the British State should intervene in the Market post Brexit 'in the national interest' is it not? I presume you support legislation (be it tarrifs or tax incentives or whatever) that would keep Aston Martin, Airbus and so forth (and all the other hundreds of Companies that are relocating out of the UK at a great rate of knots) in the UK right should Britain crash out without a deal.

No not really, I would prefer to lower tariffs where they are very high eg ag. Re cars, the UK runs a massive deficit there, so the rational thing for both sides would be zero tariffs on cars and car parts.

And in any event, Keynesian economics are designed solely to protect people from harm. It was literally developed during the Great Depression to stop (or buffer) something similar happening again. The whole point of Keynesian economics is to avoid (or mitigate the damage from) recessions and depressions.

HLM

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule"

Unless your argument is 'the Great Depression didnt harm anyone', or maybe 'the State has no role in economic policies that stave off or mitigate the damage from such events'?

The UK recovered far quicker than the US in the great depression without embracing a new deal

Are you genuinely arguing the Liberal State should just sit back and let the Great Depression mk 2 happen again, or let the market totally fall off the edge of a cliff? Australia embraces a very Keynesian economic model (central reserve bank, stimulus packages when needed etc), and we were largely shielded from the worst of the GFC as a consequence!

A) RBA is monetary not fiscal policy, Keynes did talk of permanently low interest rates but he was more about spending and aggregate demand.
B) No it had little effect. What had a huge effect was the massive monetary stimulus in China that drove iron ore prices to over $150/MT

 

[medusala]

Rees-Mogg is the most vocal proponent of a hard brexit without really saying why he supports it so ardently, aside from the odd glib 'taking back control' remark.

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if many of the Brexit campaign donors are positioning themselves to capitalise on the fall in GBP and the trashing of UK domestic stocks in the event of a no deal Brexit. Rees-Mogg's investment firm (now based in Ireland, how ironic) being one.

No actually he's not.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/jacob-rees-mogg-reluctantly-backs-mays-deal-who-will-follow/

 

[Total Power]

No actually he's not.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/jacob-rees-mogg-reluctantly-backs-mays-deal-who-will-follow/

Dear lord, you cannot be that naive.

So Moggster gets to change his mind because the facts have changed? What he previously said was 'disastrous' has now mysteriously become acceptable. But the rest of the Brits when confronted by a myriad of facts that have changed are not allowed to change their minds are they? The Moggster has a curious idea of democracy.

His support has crumbled in the west, has has no choice. JRM is a devious little weasel. If he can’t get his no-deal Brexit now, he’ll be trying to get it later, but the UK needs to be out of the EU first. If the WA is approved, he can then get to work unseating Theresa May (why else should he have asked for her to resign after Brexit) and to then destroy the WA.

Grease Mugg is basically saying 'vote for the deal' so that the UK has an opportunity to renege, backtrack, act in bad faith, and generally be a complete ***whatever*** on the global stage and towards the EU to twist the Political Declaration into something different further down the line with a different PM.

His endgame hasnt changed one bit.

 

[Deadpool]

... because you are the arbiter of all that is worthy and decent in the 'Is centrism the most sensible position to take politically?' Bigfooty thread? You get to decide what constitutes worthy conversation and worthwhile opinion?

It's funny, I don't see the moderator title below your name. Wonder why. You're so chipper and even tempered.

Possibly because I haven't been here long.

I am just asking you to back up your claims and theories (like that mysterious "media mogul") with evidence. Its not asking much.

 

[RupieDupie]

Possibly because I haven't been here long.

I am just asking you to back up your claims and theories (like that mysterious "media mogul") with evidence. Its not asking much.

Ah yes... our “elected” Australian PM the US media mogul...