Talk politics.

But is there a viable solution to this quagmire? And should there be? Yes, I'm talking about the diversity of ideas.

From:

But you don't understand! You're either with us or you're against us!

;P

From:

Believe me, this is a thing I'm witnessing every day. I've stopped raging about it a long time ago. Now I just generally smirk.

From:

I think I'm going through that same transition.

From:

It means you're maturing. :-P

From:

Damnit I want to stay angry at the world.

From:

stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com

Damnit I want to stay angry at the world.

Wait'll you get old. You'll be angry at everything.

From:

No. Just disappointed.

From:

sophia-sadek.livejournal.com

... that there is always a better position than the ones espoused. Finding that position and occupying it can be quite difficult.

From:

ddstory.livejournal.com

Good post, and thought provoking. Just a minor nitpick. I hope you do realize that your list is fairly inexhaustive. I mean it appears you're boiling this down to liberal vs conservative vs libertarian, whereas there are a myriad of other "labels" people like to stick to themselves. I realize you can't be all-inclusive without going on a long list, but still. I need to be clear with your premise.

Because for example on a majority of issues I happen to lean towards social-democrat, and I sort of cannot find myself in your (di)trichotomy.

From:

The examples are simply examples, it's not supposed to be a comprehensive list.

From:

ddstory.livejournal.com

Ah I see. :)

From:

Eh, no, the problem with affirmative action is even simpler than that: everyone likes to talk about opposing racism and all that goes with it, most balk at turning rhetoric into action. Flowery rhetoric and stirring speeches is much better than the controversial and tedious processes that would be required to make the United States a country where blacks, Indians, Asians, and women of all races have an equality of opportunity with white men. That's less entertaining and produces massive backlashes which few people have the stomach to long endure.

From:

Racist :P

From:

The reality of meaningful socialist reform is an area where physics really can serve as an analogy: for every meaningful and positive action there will be a sharp and violent reaction (with the caveat that not all violence is physical and that in a social standpoint the non-physical type is the most effective and firehoses and firebombs the least). The reality of social reform is not big rallies with meaningful speeches but a grasp of human nature, how societies work, the willingness to accept what often winds up being the futility of striving to do good and the difficulty in one lifetime of completing things like this when they begin. It's accepting that real reforms will never be universally embraced and are always likely to trigger personal attacks aimed at reformers, especially where issues of racism and classism intersect.

The true issues with affirmative action and the quota system are seldom addressed by its opponents, most of whom prefer ad hominem attacks against backers of it, and/or consider it to be an example of reverse racism, as though white and black are the only two races in the United States, and resting on the assertion that in a society where a good-sized number of people still beyond all reason will not accept a black man can be a citizen of the United States, elected with a legitimate majority not through cabals based on organizations like ACORN but on the complete incompetence of the other side and that man's own political skills quotas represent an inherent threat to the people who control most of everything good and feel thus marginalized.

If a few quotas can so badly menace all that white people have created, then let the one kick send the rotten structure tumbling down as so fragile a structure could never truly be defended against anything truly serious.

From:

geezer-also.livejournal.com

In all seriousness, if I lived where you lived, and it really is as bad as you portray (and I'm not actually doubting you) I would move. I just don't see it in my slice of America.
I am also not saying I don't know any racists or bigots, or even a few people that think that way, it's just that the world you live in seems so much different than mine.

From:

It's the South and has always been part of the culture here. It not being that would take centuries, long past the point at which the United States will have ceased to exist.

From:

geezer-also.livejournal.com

I know several areas in the South that are not nearly as bad as you project. Granting they are in Missouri and Kentucky, not Louisiana, and I do know areas in those two states that may come close; I stand by my comment.

From:

I live in a parish trying to re-establish legal segregation in the public schools and nobody is bothering to note that this is going on in plain sight. It ain't the exception, it's the rule round these here parts.

From:

squidb0i.livejournal.com

" a large part of the problem is that people naturally want to view a confrontation as having essentially two sides, us and them"

Left and Right. Liberal and Conservative.
A false either/or choice.

From:

Exactly

From:

kardashev.livejournal.com

My friend Chris has a theory that a large part of the problem is that people naturally want to view a confrontation as having essentially two sides, us and them, when in fact there are never less than three.

Your friend may be on to something. I've had similar thoughts of my own. Also, I'd like to add that each "side" has different levels to it from moderate to fanatic. It's loudmouthed fanatics who fuck everything up for their moderate and more rational brethren.

And even though you didn't mention us independents, I enjoyed this post. :)

From:

I freely admit that Chris is way smarter than I am. That's why I enjoy hanging out with him.

From:

kylinrouge.livejournal.com

Labels are pointless. There is nobody in the world that thinks 'conservatively' or 'liberally' on every issue. It's a case-by-case basis every time. By flocking into ideological groups you compromise or worse, convince yourself to adopt viewpoints that adhere to the ideology and throw away your personal convictions. Or you can just be a moderate, which I don't consider to be 'in the middle', but as having a balance of views that come from your own experiences, instead of joining a bandwagon.

From:

kylinrouge.livejournal.com

Of course a moderate is a pointless label too, not quite known as a labelless label.

From:

eracerhead.livejournal.com

The honest liberals want to protect the weak. They see no distinction between libertarians and conservatives lack of protection for the weak.

This is a mischaracterization often found in the conservative mindset, which leads me to believe Chris is coming from that position. Liberals are not protecting the weak because these people aren't weak. They are subject to a game rigged in other people's favor which is part of the status quo. The theory being that if the playing field were leveled, they would do just about as well as anyone else.

Thus the honest liberals want to transform the status quo. They see no distinction between libertarians and conservatives lack of action as perpetuating a system rigged in their favor.

The honest conservatives want to preserve the status quo. They consider both liberal and libertarians to be enemies because they threaten the status quo.

Agreed, however I would characterize it as against their interest, rather than being enemies.

The honest libertarians want to be left alone. They see no distinction between liberals and conservatives because both [insist] on [meddling] in other people's affairs.

The honest libertarian wants less government interference in their personal lives, but recognizes that governance is a necessary part of human existence. Those who want no government are called anarchists.

Supporters of Affirmative Action (if white) want to keep the playing field fair. Opponents of Affirmative action are indistinguishable from Racists because they would both abolish the fairness of the field.

Supporters of Affirmative Action ~~(if white)~~ want to ~~keep~~ make the playing field fair. You are asserting that the playing field is already fair. Liberals don't believe that to be true.

Opponents of Affirmative action are racist s because they perpetuate a status quo that is rigged in their favor by accident of birth. Do you see the distinction?

Racists (if white) want [their] side to win.
Supporters of Affirmative Action (Non-white) want [their] side to win.

I have no idea why you're putting in the race qualifiers here. Everyone wants to win (black or white), but they want to win amongst the quality of human ideas. One wants to win by empowering, the other by disempowering.

Opponents of Affirmative (Non-Racist) want the government to GTFO of the race business, because they think the race business is evil. Affirmative Action supporters are indistinguishable from white supremacists because they think that the government belongs in the race business.

That very idea as you characterize it is racist so the two sentences are incoherent. You cannot both recognize and not recognize race. If you think the race business is evil, then how can you justify doing nothing in the face of it? Rather, non-racist opponents of affirmative action believe that it is better to let racial disparities play out without government involvement; that the meritocracy will eventually prevail.

The end result is an ideological battle of everyone against everyone where in any form of compromise is viewed as a deal with the devil and thats why everyone [loses] [their] shit.

I don't think your argument leads to this conclusion. People "lose their shit" mostly because they cannot or haven't taken the time to reconcile their argument against an ethical framework and thus need to shout with repetition in order to perpetuate the belief that they are correct. In other words, their political ideology becomes a religion: It is based solely on faith and their preachers are media pundits. (I'm looking at you Fox News.)

From:

sophia-sadek.livejournal.com

The process that irks me most is that of lingual corruption. Woodrow Wilson claimed that he wanted to make the world "safe for democracy." What he really meant was that he wanted to maintain an economic climate that was amenable to the growth of American businesses. Now, anyone who supports America economic expansion uses Wilson's deceptive slogan.

This corruption can also be seen in the labels you mention. Liberals can be very illiberal at times. Conservatives seem to only want to conserve despotism. Libertarians pursue domination in the name of liberty.

From:

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

don't look at it left-right, look at it top-bottom.

who has lobbyists? who gets extensive tax cuts when the debt is ballooning? who has tax-shelters to avoid paying their taxes?

small businesses and the middle class have a lot more in common than small businesses and big businesses do.

From:

Top vs. Bottom is still overly simplistic.

Yes, small businesses and the middle class have a lot more in common than small businesses and big businesses do. Unfortunatly the typical leftist approach to problem solving is to empower the beurocrats who happen to be the natural enemies of small small businesses and the middle class.

If you are giving guns to my enemy you are not my friend I don't care how much we have in common.

From:

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

...that's not how it is, but OK. that's how you see it.

From:

Well enlighten me then. I am legitimately curious.

How do you see it?

From:

The real problem with that analysis is that it's overly simplistic in a different faction: The Populares/Democrats are just as tied to the big corporations as the Optimate/Republicans. The Democrats make more noise about favoring the interests of the middle class and the poor but the policies of both parties are near-indistinguishable because their ultimate power bases are near-indistinguishable.

From:

The problem with this analysis is that much of the Democratic Party's leadership is also wealthy and Democrats have ties with corporations as deep as anything seen with the Republicans. The two parties are both neck and neck with their rival corporate partners so if this is top-bottom I think those two concepts are in need of redefinition.

From: