Re: rush to the middle

nate (schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu)
Thu, 13 May 1999 07:34:26 -0500

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BE9D13.07241FE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Phil said:

"I'm currently researching the history of US political parties, =
particularly the Democrats (under the heading of "Third Way" politics). =
The difference between what the US polity considers to be "conservative" =
and "liberal" behaviour in politics still surprises me, as does the US =
definition of "Left" and "Right". In Australia and Europe, conservative =
behaviour would be "hands-on". We would define conservative behaviour as =
an emphasis on the importance of institutions, especially government, =
church, and the traditional family unit in controlling mores, policies, =
and laws. Liberalism, on the other hand, emphasises the importance of =
the individual and her or his freedom and thus would favour a =
laissez-faire approach to life, liberty, the economy, and law: hands =
off."=20

"Our Left and Right has traditionally been a division between those =
(Labo[u]r) parties who favour the conditions of workers and the =
Liberal/Conservatives who pander to the interests of Capital. The =
historical traditions of the US are fairly unique in terms of western =
politics."

I agree with your analysis of america's so called uniqueness. In one =
of my classes this semester we had several students from Brasil who saw =
"liberal" as being representative of the right. =20

I am coming to the belief that no such thing as the left exists in =
American politics. A close look at the "biblical" Federalist Papers and =
Consititution it becomes apparent that the so called "evil fractions" =
were nothing else than working class resurgences. The so called =
minorities that needed protection were the capitalists not the working =
class, ethnic minorities as it is assumed today. In a recent Poli Sci =
class the professor (Englishman) was perplexed that a "working class" =
legacy never emerged in the U.S., but if one reads some of the early =
literature of America it is apparant that the lack of a working class =
legacy is one of design. Even the so called "democrats" ,like =
Jefferson, saw education as inclusive by making the working class more =
like the elite so the "republic" could survive. This can still be seen =
today with all the studies on reading, assessment etc. in which there is =
an appearance of a threat to the republic and education is the tool =
which is used to have students identify with the values of the =
"republic'. It has been argued that the "english only laws" are laws =
for the future in which the values, beliefs etc of the republic will =
survive even after the white majority is no longer.=20

So much of the American left and right while differing in details seem =
to hold the same basic assumptions of protecting the assumptions of our =
"founding fathers". It is argued politics are nastier now because they =
are personal as in Clinton's impeachment, but what seems to be forgotten =
is that they are personal because there is no longer any political =
differentiation. What is different between the new left as in Clinton =
and Blair and the progressive right as in many of the governors in the =
states? While this tweddle dee - twiddle dum has a sense a "newness", =
at least in America, it seems to have a long history.

Nate =20

=20

=20

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BE9D13.07241FE0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

Phil said:

"I'm currently researching the history of US political = parties,=20 particularly the Democrats (under the heading of "Third Way" = politics). The=20 difference between what the US polity considers to be "conservative" = and=20 "liberal" behaviour in politics still surprises me, as does the US = definition=20 of "Left" and "Right". In Australia and Europe, conservative behaviour = would=20 be "hands-on". We would define conservative behaviour as an emphasis = on the=20 importance of institutions, especially government, church, and the = traditional=20 family unit in controlling mores, policies, and laws. Liberalism, on = the other=20 hand, emphasises the importance of the individual and her or his = freedom and=20 thus would favour a laissez-faire approach to life, liberty, the = economy, and=20 law: hands off."

"Our Left and Right has traditionally been a = division=20 between those (Labo[u]r) parties who favour the conditions of workers = and the=20 Liberal/Conservatives who pander to the interests of Capital. The = historical=20 traditions of the US are fairly unique in terms of western = politics."
 
 
I agree with your analysis of = america's so called=20 uniqueness.  In one of my classes this semester we had several = students=20 from Brasil who saw "liberal" as being representative of the = right. =20
 
I am coming to the belief that no = such thing as=20 the left exists in American politics.  A close look at the = "biblical"=20 Federalist Papers and Consititution it becomes apparent that the so = called=20 "evil fractions" were nothing else than working class = resurgences.  The=20 so called minorities that needed protection were the capitalists = not the=20 working class, ethnic minorities as it is assumed today.  In a = recent=20 Poli Sci class the professor (Englishman) was perplexed that a = "working class"=20 legacy never emerged in the U.S., but if one reads some of the = early=20 literature of America it is apparant that the lack of a working class = legacy=20 is one of design.  Even the so called "democrats" ,like = Jefferson, saw=20 education as inclusive by making the working class more like the = elite so=20 the "republic" could survive.  This can still be seen today = with all=20 the studies on reading, assessment etc. in which there is an = appearance of a=20 threat to the republic and education is the tool which is used to = have students identify with the values of the "republic'.  = It has=20 been argued that the "english only laws" are laws for the future in = which the=20 values, beliefs etc of the republic will survive even after the = white=20 majority is no longer. 
 
So much of the American left and = right while=20 differing in details seem to hold the same basic assumptions of = protecting the=20 assumptions of our "founding fathers".  It is argued = politics are=20 nastier now because they are personal as in Clinton's=20 impeachment, but what seems to be forgotten is that they are = personal because there is no longer any political = differentiation.  What=20 is different between the new left as in Clinton and Blair and the = progressive right as in many of the governors in the states?  = While this=20 tweddle dee - twiddle dum has a sense a "newness", at least in = America,=20 it seems to have a long history.
 
Nate      =
 
 
      
 
  
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BE9D13.07241FE0--