Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Define 'far right'. What, about Trump, is 'far right'? List the things that are far right.
Defining what is Right and "far Right" is going to be as fruitless as defining what is "Left" and "far Left" as the definitions have changed often, and quickly, over the years.
To illustrate, what is now considered to be "Left" would have been unthinkably far Left a few decades ago. What is now considered "Right" would have been undeniably Left a few more decades ago.
Engaging them on their current definition of the Overton Window is pointless, if not counter-productive.
In a couple of generations, if they get their way, calling anyone a man or a woman will be "far Right". Better not to engage them on their terms at all. Just unapologetically advocate for your politics and ignore them completely. Dialogue at all, at this point, is likely to be a waste of time.
Trump is to the left of both parties. The only thing remotely "right" about him is he is a civic nationalist. Civic nationalism is not historically right-wing but certainly is instead of globalism.
Defining what is Right and "far Right" is going to be as fruitless as defining what is "Left" and "far Left" as the definitions have changed often, and quickly, over the years.
To illustrate, what is now considered to be "Left" would have been unthinkably far Left a few decades ago. What is now considered "Right" would have been undeniably Left a few more decades ago.
Engaging them on their current definition of the Overton Window is pointless, if not counter-productive.
In a couple of generations, if they get their way, calling anyone a man or a woman will be "far Right". Better not to engage them on their terms at all. Just unapologetically advocate for your politics and ignore them completely. Dialogue at all, at this point, is likely to be a waste of time.
left and right is pretty simple. If you like bigger government and federalization you are to the left. If you want less of it and local government you are to the right. "Race" has nothing to do with it. The Nazis were race based socialists. The only "right" wing nature of it is an ethno nationalist is smaller than a civic nationalists , which is smaller than a federalist or a globalist.
Both parties are using right wing tactics in the US to essentially dissolve its civic nationalism. Their long term aim is to break it up and then realign it globally. That is where the confusion lies. Libertarians need to go left at the local level since the external threat to it is greater.
Trump is to the left of both parties. The only thing remotely "right" about him is he is a civic nationalist. Civic nationalism is not historically right-wing but certainly is instead of globalism.
Your abject ignorance is however noted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
left and right is pretty simple. If you like bigger government and federalization you are to the left. If you want less of it and local government you are to the right. "Race" has nothing to do with it. The Nazis were race based socialists. The only "right" wing nature of it is an ethno nationalist is smaller than a civic nationalists , which is smaller than a federalist or a globalist.
Both parties are using right wing tactics in the US to essentially dissolve its civic nationalism. Their long term aim is to break it up and then realign it globally. That is where the confusion lies. Libertarians need to go left at the local level since the external threat to it is greater.
You're absolutely wrong in terms of your concept of political theory.
All politics is based in interpersonal cooperation (me either helping or refusing to help you on a deep level), which finds its political base in in culture, which ultimately finds its base in race.
Thus, whatever your political biases and cognitive dissonance, you will never find any truly strong political groups that are not rooted in ethnicity.
All politics is rooted in ethnicity, and finds their expression in either the willful cohesion or dissolution of ethnicity. Whether ethnicity is being strengthened or diluted is what defines "Right" and "Left", respectively. As ethnicity is the objective root (like it or not) of all political power and political mechanics.
No civic nationalist ever inter-generationally bequeathed money, political resources, nor social resources to another person because he was a civic nationalist. All of these components are required to build political power inter-generationally. Thus, their absence implies a false political framework.
Your "civic nationalism" is a globalist concept designed to dismantle ethnic cohesion, and thus to politically disempower groups so that their power centers can be dissolved and globalist rule can take their place.
The "Right", for most of human history, has implied tribal bonding and politics. Exclusion for the purpose of cultural and political strength.
The "Left", for all of human history, has implied universality in deference to wider empire; the end result being globalism. Your civic nationalism falls under this category.
Note that you even place your civic nationalism on the gamut to the Left of ethnic nationalism, as I bolded in your response. The truth is that the world cannot 'hold the center' of civic nationalism, because it is politically weaker (in power) than both globalism and ethnic-nationalism. The world will continue to be defined by the poles of political power, globalism and ethnic nationalism, because those are the only places in the political gamut that can create enough political power to compete with its opposite concept (ethnic nationalism and globalism respectively).
Oh, got it. You were referring to politicians. Your writing was unclear. The "party" has a lot of members, to include non-politicians and people posting on this board.
Well, you can frame the situation how you like, but it shows either a willful or surprisingly tone-deaf understanding of what is happening. The entire point was that the "party" and its "conservatives" did not represent the base. Thus, their supposed level of "conservatism" is irrelevant. The 'tone deaf' part comes in when the Left doesn't realize that the position of using the old-guard to bash the new only reinforces the electorates perspective that the old guard were insufficient. After all, the Left is fine using them as political bludgeons.
It's amazing how far behind the Left is in their perception of the modern political enviornment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
