12 votes

Do you have any quotes or articles that you now find prescient to share?

I have these 2 quotes here. This quote is apparently from this book, cited in this article:

If the two parties do not develop alternative programs that can be executed, the voter’s frustration and the mounting ambiguities of national policy might also set in motion more extreme tendencies to the political left and the political right. This, again, would represent a condition to which neither our political institutions nor our civic habits are adapted. Once a deep political cleavage develops between opposing groups, each group naturally works to keep it deep. Such groups may gravitate beyond the confines of the American system of government and its democratic institutions.

Assuming a survival of the two-party system in form though not in spirit, even if only one of the diametrically opposite parties comes to flirt with unconstitutional means and ends, the consequences would be serious. For then the constitution-minded electorate would be virtually reduced to a one-party system with no practical alternative to holding to the “safe” party at all cost.

Wow.

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. -John Adams

There is also this text from the Pew Political Typology of the US in 1999 which I found somewhat funny:

The polling shows more compassion toward the poor and less hostility toward immigrants. A greater percentage in this survey than in the recent past think the government should do more to help needy people, and fewer express strong support for tightening our borders to further restrict immigration. Both of these trends may reflect the increased economic satisfaction and diminished financial pressure registered in this year’s survey. Gains in economic contentment have been greatest among upper income groups, while people in the lowest income category report less financial pressure but no more financial satisfaction than in the mid-1990s. Unexpectedly, despite these trends, Americans report no greater satisfaction with their wages than in the recent past. In fact, middle-income people are less satisfied than they were in 1994.

DAMAGED AND SCUFFED, MY HANDS HAVE BEEN CUFFED, BUT I DON'T PLAN TO GET HUFF, FRANTIC AND PUFF OR PLAN TO GIVE U-

That has aged pretty uniquely if you see it as the immediate effects of neoliberalism.

Anyway, do you have anything to share?

6 comments

  1. moonbathers
    Link
    An Onion article from January 2001: Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'. I don't think elaborating on it can even do it justice, it's incredible. (unless...

    An Onion article from January 2001: Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'. I don't think elaborating on it can even do it justice, it's incredible. (unless you need context, I'd be happy to explain it then)

    8 votes
  2. [4]
    Seven
    Link
    Speaking of partisanship, this is one of my favorite quotes from Innuendo Studios on Youtube that I've liked to quote recently:

    Speaking of partisanship, this is one of my favorite quotes from Innuendo Studios on Youtube that I've liked to quote recently:

    I don’t feel the need to pretend that, just because most democracies have a left wing and a right wing, that both are equally valid and moral. There is no rule that proves this. There is only the liberal sentiment that saying otherwise is poor sportsmanship (a standard the Right does not hold itself to). Conservatism is a reactionary politics that has, at best, mixed feelings about democracy, where my biggest issue with liberalism is that it is ill-equipped to deal with the problem of conservatism and does not fully commit to its own democratic principles.

    5 votes
    1. [3]
      Kuromantis
      Link Parent
      From what video is this from specifically? I'm still not totally convinced, although I was (re)watching their video on 'always a bigger fish that talks about how in a capitalist democracy,...

      From what video is this from specifically? I'm still not totally convinced, although I was (re)watching their video on 'always a bigger fish that talks about how in a capitalist democracy, conservatives priortize the capitalist element and left-er people prioritize the democratic element which, an argument definitely vindicated to me by hearing a 'libertarian' (flaired libright on r/politicalcompassmemes, although he recommended hoppeanism or incredibly racist 'libertarianism') claiming democracy is communism because everyone gets an equal voice over the future of the nation (or more specifically to him, everyone can vote on what to do with their property).

      (Also that's the best argument for replacing capitalism I've heard yet.)

      But so long as you're socially progressive and you oppose regulatory capture because it's contradictory to the idea of a free, ideally meritocratic market, you can reasonably be a rightist in a democracy, right?

      1. [2]
        Seven
        Link Parent
        This quote is actually from the follow up to that "Always a Bigger Fish" video. "EndNote 3: The Origins of Conservatism" defends and sources some claims made in the prior video, basically tracking...

        This quote is actually from the follow up to that "Always a Bigger Fish" video. "EndNote 3: The Origins of Conservatism" defends and sources some claims made in the prior video, basically tracking the conservative philosophy back to its roots, and showing that conservatism, as an ideology, "is fundamentally about preserving social hierarchies and defending the powerful from democratic principles." It's a really good watch.

        1 vote
        1. Kuromantis
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Fair enough. I suppose my hypothetical vaguely-neolib/classical liberal/libertarian who opposes regulatory capture and market interference in government (a character I have never seen materialize...

          Fair enough. I suppose my hypothetical vaguely-neolib/classical liberal/libertarian who opposes regulatory capture and market interference in government (a character I have never seen materialize IRL) is only vaguely okay-ish under the supposition that stopping corporations from subsuming government to their needs is enough metaphorical lubricant in the hierarchy to stop the mass centralization we're seeing today.

          In that case, what do we do with these people, the entirety of the political right, ranging from social/cultural conservatives to libertarians to neoliberals to national conservatives (the supposed name of all the trumpist stuff rolling around) to anarcho capitalists, now that we have proven their beliefs and their interests are fundamentally selfish? (BTW this already obvious to me when it comes to the social folk and the ancap folk)

  3. nacho
    Link
    From a 2015 issue of The Economist I think this is a fundamentally important and under-communicated point that explains so much of what's wrong with public discourse today. And why that's such a...

    Still, a chat with Judith Martin ("Miss Manners") inspires hope. For one thing, she argues that in important ways the country has become more civil. Notably, bigotry—whether aimed at other races, women or gays—is increasingly understood to be rude, as well as wrong. For another, she observes that the failures of American etiquette often arise from great national virtues, such as restless ambition, candour and above all the principle of equality. The Founding Fathers, she notes, took great interest in etiquette—meaning rules of polite conduct policed by social disapproval—because they had just invented a republic which preferred not to use class hierarchies or the law to regulate speech and many individual acts.

    In such a republic of liberties, the exchange of ideas and opinions is made possible by civility. The battle to ensure that those liberties remain both strong and civil is not won even today. Too many on the left seem tempted by rules to restrict “unsafe” speech. Lots of voters on the right are thrilled by the politics of insult and rancour. Some presidential candidates scorn civility as a sign of weakness. History suggests that those boorish politicians are misjudging a country that is better-mannered than this. Hope that history is right.

    From a 2015 issue of The Economist

    I think this is a fundamentally important and under-communicated point that explains so much of what's wrong with public discourse today. And why that's such a big deal for a republic of liberties to function.

    3 votes