ok, I"m sick and tired of people here saying the far left and the far right are equal

[Lerkfish]

for one thing, they have vastly differing agendas, and you know it.
For another, labeling normal people as "far left" because they want a public option is purposely ignoring that 80 percent of america wanted a public option.

If that makes them all far left, then the spectrum is truly tilted.

further, its a transparent attempt to shut down discussion and control the message by slightly skirting the thin edge of the rules at DU by calling progressives republicans.

so, stop this crap... you fool no one except perhaps yourself. There is no equivalence between the far right and the far left.

[H2O Man]

1. I agree.

I view statements like that to be evidence of taking a shortcut to rational thought.

Recommended.

[JonLP24]

106. +1

I agree. I haven't read or heard 'far left' used so much when I watched O'Reilly Factor years ago. I used to watch to hopefully catch a progressive on there give him the verbal smackdown but I realized later it wasn't worth it.

[quaker bill]

2. Correct

the far right is a much larger group.

[nxylas]

101. And much more powerful

Since they represent the interests of the most powerful members of society.

[mcablue]

3. The first people to oppose the Iraq war were called "far left"

So feel proud to be a "far leftist."

[corpseratemedia]

4. +1

[pampango]

5. Agreed, although it seems to be a DU tradition to characterize those with whom one doesn't agree,

as anything other than a progressive who happens to have a different opinion on a particular public policy or political strategy.

Personally, I think the "strange bedfellows" argument is valid as far as discussing political strategy, since it is useful to understand what the repubs are up to as we discuss a progressive strategy to achieve our goals. But the "strange bedfellows" argument shouldn't be taken so far as to equate progressive DU'ers with republicans or, as you say, the far left with the far right.

[Cary]

6. In another thread I was more than mocked

by revealing the fact that I am a prominent attorney who concentrates my practice on helping people with special needs.

I do good work. I do important work. I have a specialized expertise that is very relevant to the debate, yet I was treated exactly as I have been treated by "conservatives."

I would love to say that the "far left" or whatever some of these people are aren't "equavalent" to "conservatives." Believe me, I am disgusted to have to concede the fact that my fellow liberals are as callow and puerile as rightists. However I can't reconcile this any other way.

Stupid tactics are stupid tactics and the ends do not justify the means.

[cornermouse]

8. equivalent not equavalent.

As an attorney, especially to people with special needs, I would expect you to actually listen to the other point of view in order to understand where they're coming from. I ask myself why you aren't listening.

People are genuinely worried and upset about the mandatory feature without a large and substantial public option at the very least. I am surprised that, as an attorney for people with special needs, you can't see that and apparently don't favor or aren't interested in the same thing. The group you say you represent would have benefited from it tremendously.

Name calling is easy but doesn't win any support. Again as an attorney, you should already know that. Stupid tactics and the end not justifying the means? Tell that to the legislators and the president who have been so busily berating and attacking their own base; the very essence of stupid tactics and the end not justifying the means.

[tavalon]

13. You totally missed his point

and correcting a spelling error as your opener doesn't win you any points, either.

[Cary]

18. Like the "namecalling" thing

This is a perfect example of a stupid, "conservative" like tactic.

So is your notion that you can lecture me on what I should do "as an attorney."

I hear your point of view. I have stated over and over that I respect it. What I don't respect are your tactics.

You don't have to like that.

[cornermouse]

19. Why not?

Seems to me you started with a lecture rather than a premise or proposition to debate.

Conservative? :eyes: Whatever floats your boat.

[Cary]

22. Whatever floats my boat is irrelevant

You people don't seem to understand the concept of relevance. You don't need to worry about what "floats my boat" or even about my "boat" at all.

My "boat" isn't a premise or a proposition open to debate. "Conservatives" don't understand this fact and so they "Swift boat" and smear and find blue dresses instead of debating.

I am really surprised and disappointed that after all we've been through with this so many of my fellow DUers can't make this basic and essential distinction.

[cornermouse]

25. Of course.

We needed more. We deserve more.

I don't agree so I must be a conservative. Carry on without me.

[Cary]

28. That isn't what I'm saying

I'm saying I wish you wouldn't use their dysfunctional tactics. That's all.

[Hannah Bell]

67. "you people"

[tavalon]

10. I saw that and it was awful

I didn't remember the name of the lawyer (you, obviously) but the tone just shocked me.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Of course you were mocked. In the past we ahve had Presidential...

campaign workers and local candidates driven off the board because they apparently didn't know more about running for office than some of the keyboard warriors here.

I have been at local Party meetings where DFA people came in and told long-time party operatives how things were going to change. (That went well...)

I spent half my working life as an insurance underwiter and manager but I know nothing-- I'm just a shill for the "corporatists."

There's a Gresham's law in online communication going back to Usenet-- expertise is mocked and discounted by those who have the time to sit here and kvetch while the people who know what they're talking about are too busy working at what they know to waste their time with the nonsense.

[Hannah Bell]

70. "people who know what they're talking about" - lol. It's these "experts" trying to push through

a bill that most of the public doesn't like, the most important feature of which = an income stream to insurance corps.

There's a Gresham's law about class war, too--it's that the connected "experts" will always attempt to convince the masses policy-making is just too complicated for their feeble little heads & they should leave it to the smart kids who own the country (the ones presently bleeding it dry).

[TreasonousBastard]

121. OK, so we'll play Cultural Revolution and send all the...

experts off to some island and let the Great Pure Masses run things.

Lets see how that works.

[eridani]

80. Underwriting for health insurance is a fundamentally sociopathic thing to do

It is labelling people who have been sick or who have unlucky genes as disposable human garbage who deserve to pay way more for health care. No other developed country has any equivalent. Life insurance and car insurance are different matters entirely.

[TicketyBoo]

120. Well, maybe it's a dirty job

but somebody has to do it.

My father always thought that owning a liquor store or a bar or working as a bartender were immoral occupations because you are profiting at the expense of others' misery.

My take on that has been that doctors and lawyers are profiting off others' misery, too. I guess Dad's point of view was that liquor establishments are profiting by creating unnecessary misery.

Medical underwriters aren't doing that, at least. They are not creating the conditions; they are merely assessing them.

[eridani]

128. Doctors and lawyers provide actual services

Medical underwriters are useless shitstains whose job is to create a class of second class citizens.

[TicketyBoo]

134. They are an unfortunate

necessity for insurance companies. That's the way insurance works. As I said, a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.

[eridani]

135. They are not necessary at all if we simply establish that everyone has the right to health care

This does not apply to life insurance or car insurance.

[TicketyBoo]

136. The only way

that they wouldn't be necessary is if there is NO private health insurance at all. Otherwise, they are necessary to determine profitability (even if denial of care is not involved).

[eridani]

138. Private insurance could still provide bells and whistles

And anyone who thinks profit belongs in health insurance is sociopathic advocate of mass murder and bankruptcy.

[TicketyBoo]

140. Private insurance

means profit, so I guess by advocating "bells and whistles," you are one of those sociopathic advocates of mass murder and bankruptcy?

I have Medicare, and it is advantageous to me to pay for a Medicare supplemental plan through private insurance. Now, I know they have actuaries to determine what my premium needs to be in order to cover me (and everyone else who is paying for the same policy I have). I don't see what's murderous about that. Anytime I see that the company is not meeting my needs, I can quit paying premiums and drop the policy. The problem is with pre-existing conditions. I wouldn't be allowed back on that policy now, since my health is worse than when I got on it. Will now allowing folks with pre-existing conditions to buy my policy make my premiums go up? Maybe. Or maybe those on Medicare won't receive the benefits in the new legislation regarding pre-existing conditions? I don't know how things are going to turn out for me, personally, but I am relieved that something is going to happen for younger people. I like Medicare a lot, and I just wish that they would (could) have adopted Medicare For All because I do think the costs involved it setting it up would have been much less, since the bureaucracy is already in place. Most people understand Medicare (or have a family member or friend who does). I guess it just makes too much sense for a plan like that to come out of the chaos that is Congress.

[eridani]

144. Yes, Medicare for All just makes way too much sense! n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

122. I never worked for a health insurer, but a large part of any...

underwriting job is risk assessment and the attempted prediction of future claims.

That, by itself, is neutral and necessary in any system to have some idea what future costs will be. It is what you do after assessing risk that may or may not be sociopathic.

[eridani]

129. Simply accept the premise that everyone has the right to health care--

--and medical underwriting is unnecessary.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. Two things, one you will like the other you will not.

First off, I am a media professional, and let me tell you, everybody will explain to me how the media works. I am not allowed to tell them how to run a dry cleaners or be a plumber, and they will scoff if I offer an opinion about their line of work. But I can state an exact fact from the media business, and be simply ignored. Even when I explain my own business actions to others, as in 'I'm doing this because X is true' most people will just say to me 'I don't think X is true'. I say ok, but I make my money by being right about this, and have since I was 20. Still, they are sure I am wrong about the media, because of things they have heard, in the media. So it is fairly common to have others utterly reject one's expertise, no matter how proven (I was world wide known, still am really) and no matter how lacking in experience they might be.
The thing you will not like is a question I learned to ask in my business. You are an attorney working in the field in question. How will this bill impact you financially? Would a bill more beloved by what you call the 'far left' have impacted your money in a different way, and if so, in what ways?
The thing is, a person's bread gets turned toward the butter side. That is human nature. So if this bill makes you money, then there it is. Butter up. If it does not, then that is a different thing. Would you support a bill that would harm your bottom line?

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Where's a link to that thread?

Sorry for being sceptical, but after searching myself and reading yr posts since you reappeared at DU a few days ago, all I can see you doing is whining about how terrible DU is and saying some pretty nasty things about other DUers. So I'm very sceptical of yr claim in this thread and would like to see the link to the thread so I can see for myself what happened...

[Jax]

84. LECTURE

stupid is LECTURE.

YOU LECTURE. STUPID.


Hold up a hand mirror and LECTURE YOURSELF.

[otherlander]

130. You're not equating liberalism

with actual leftism, though, right?
:shrug:

[cali]

7. Philosophically, yes, very different. Tactically? Sometimes quite similar

Consider, for example, Jane Hansher's attack on Bernie and attempt to get Vermonters to give him the boot or almost anything written in Counterpunch. It's the adherence to dogma in any given situation and the demonization of opponents that they have in common, not ideology.

[cornermouse]

9. Singing quite a different tune, aren't you.

Principles are such temporary things....

[cali]

12. say what? I have no frickin' idea what you're trying to say.

[cornermouse]

23. I'm merely saying what I've seen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7229758&mesg_id=7229758
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=60874&mesg_id=61990

[Hannah Bell]

72. I noticed the sudden turnaround & the second sudden turnaround too.

[Cary]

24. Cornermouse is saying you're inconsistent

I have to agree with cornermouse on this point.

Of course it's okay to be inconsistent. Inconsistency doesn't help your credibility, but it's certainly human.

[tavalon]

14. More like attack mouse, if this thread is any indication

[cali]

15. I haven't attacked anyone in this thread. I expressed a pov

if you disagree, simply explaining why would be more pertinent than a gratuitous and untrue comment.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. Ethics aside, nut-right tactics sometimes work

What is seen by some here(not directing this at you) as RW or LW is actually just politics outside our narrow range of vote-and-shut-up.

American politics is unusually non-violent and sterile by human standards, and that is a very good thing, on balance.

But revolutionary political change is usually accomplished with some level of quasi-religious dogma, street violence and a disdain for truth as a hindrance.

Human nature.

So it makes sense that ANY political movement outside the mainstream will gravitate toward a set of behaviors... because they work.

When I say "they work" I do not mean they achieve every stated objective, but that they project influence disproportionate to the numbers involved.

And being outrageous is part of the deal. It is central to our political CW that Michael Moore hurt John Kerry, that Code-Pink hurt the anti-war effort, etc. But that's hard stuff to quantify.

For our particular system to work we must be a conservative people... our system hangs on absolute respect for some stuff a bunch of dead people wrote down.

And we must believe, as an article of faith, that extremism does not work because our system is brittle. We cannot handle extremism... we don't have dozens of cranky little parties. Every bit of extremism infects a big organism, like a national party.

And, paradoxically, voters seem to react in such a way that extremism either be eradicated or internalized because we cannot have it floating around outside the mainstream. But either solution works. (Think of FDR being credited with saving capitalism by co-opting socialism.)

I believe that terrorism and probably extremism always work but appear to fail because they never achieve their outlandish stated objectives. But they expand the envelope of views...

From tea-baggers to PETA the game isn't to win in literal terms, but to be visible. I think PETA is a joke but I also think that awareness of and political sympathy toward animal-cruelty issues is higher because of PETA.

When the question becomes, "Have they gone way too far in a good cause?" the goodness of the cause is conceded. The credibility of somewhat-less-extreme animal rights groups is actually burnished.

The effects I am describing are glacial, and not readily seen in actual political argument. Nobody sane applauded when the Black Panthers deviated into assassinating random policemen but put that event on a chart of money flowing into the inner cities to support non-violent community stuff... extremists stretch the envelope making other stuff appear good by comparison.

We are actually giving republican politicians credit as sane people for admitting the president was born in America. We prop up Palestinians who are not hamas. We negotiate with the non-military arm of the IRA.

And perhaps Bernie Sanders, the only socialist in congress, will end up looking pretty mainstream.

Our all-or-nothing two-party system is uniquely designed to throttle the extreme, so extremes are not going to win any elections. But in re-defining the parameters of debate extremism seems to have some efficacy.

[KharmaTrain]

16. The Futher You Go...

...the more ideological and the more bent someone is of their convictions. Call it "extremism" but those on both sides do put their beliefs ahead of many political realities and will hold others to similar standards. On substance, there's a massive difference between the politics and philosophies of those on each side, but when it comes down to "purity" or expectations, both sides have strict expectations and little tolerance for those with contrary opinions.

The problem has been this country has been tilted right for so long, anything centrist is viewed as being "left"...such as all the claims that President Obama is a socialist. The corporate media perpetuates this "status quo" through how they frame issues. Any social issue is viewed as "leftist" while military and economics is from the "right". Sadly the media is wedded to this view and thus we're stuck with their view of "fair and balanced"...which almost always slants to the right.

Happy Holiday...

[JTFrog]

17. You obviously missed threads calling for alliance with the fucking teabaggers....

Talk about fooling no one...

[OHdem10]

20. There is a big difference: Over the last decades the Liberals have

been correct on every issue. Yet, they continue to be
ignored by their own party.

The RW Policies have brought us to Crisis.

How long will they continue to dig the hole deeper rather
than listen to Liberals and crawl out of the hole.

[KittyWampus]

26. SOME of the Far Left are equal in their intolerance and irrational hatred. BTW you don't speak for

for the Left, Progressives or anyone else.

Neither do the rest of the shriekers on this forum who spend hours trashing Obama and Democrats.

[Forkboy]

27. It's just lazy thinking.

[WCGreen]

30. I started a shit-storm the other day that makes precisely this point...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7303823


A big recommendation.....

I even cited the post where people did say the far right and the far left should and together. There was talk of tea baggers having a lot in common with progressives....

[sweetloukillbot]

38. Its not really new though - look at all the left-wing folks who flocked to Ron Paul...

One of my closest friends, a rather radical liberal got interested in Ron Paul last year. Now I can't talk to him without hearing some reference to gun rights, illegal aliens, or some skewed interpretation of the Constitution.

[Ysabel]

131. people who flocked to ron paul aren't really lefties / nt...

[Retired AF Dem]

31. There is no difference between the FAR left and the FAR right

since both would like to force people to live in their fucked up ideas of utopia.

[bowens43]

59. what an incredibly ignorant statement.

I am always amazed when I see this kind of trash talk here on DU.

[Hannah Bell]

73. Does that apply to the "moderate" health-insurance mandate, too?

[Enthusiast]

93. Who is far left?

Those that advocate for the public option?

[JVS]

112. plonk

[jgraz]

32. I don't mind it.

It helps me pick out the really dumb from the just kinda dumb.

[Le Taz Hot]

33. In 1975 I was a middle-of-the-road Democrat.

In 2009, I'm a "far leftist." I haven't changed MY belief system . . .

[sweetloukillbot]

39. I've had the opposite happen it seems...

In 1988 I was a far left wacko. Now by most of the arguments I've seen on here, I'm a centrist, corporate DINO.

[snot]

34. I disagree; BUT I consider "public option" CENTER, not far left.

To my mind, a moderate position would recognize that certain aspects of our lives are most appropriately handled by governmental agencies, such as health insurance, water supply, police, fire, the military, education, basic public transport, bank and stock market regulation.

This is for a variety of reasons, such as, among others:
The service is a necessity, not a choice
The service involves a large-scale initial investment
The service offers unusual temptations to fraud or other misuse or abuse
The service involves matters too complex to for non-experts to inform themselves so as to make good choices

In my opinion, there should always be a "public option" version of each of the above, and as a practical matter re- many if not most, the public option should be the ONLY option. Most other developed democracies in the world seem to recognize this, or at least they used to.

And i.m.o., the media should also be added to this list.

[liberal_at_heart]

78. I've never understood why people are trying to claim that public option is far left

The majority of the citizens of this country want a public option.

[panzerfaust]

35. Really?

They seem kissing cousins to me:

[hansberrym]

36. Yes, just look at the wide gulf between Obama and Bush....

Let's look at the two biggest issues facing the US -the wars and the economy. The differences are truly striking! (laughter)

War: Double down, increase the troops
Bailouts: Save the big banks, give lip service to the middle class


Ask yourself, just how vastly different is the Neocon world view from the far left world view? The posturing is sometimes very different, but the policies are the nearly the same.

[Hannah Bell]

75. "Under the radar, Obama pushes for Patriot Act renewal"

i don't notice any significant rollback of bush policy in any area, frankly.

we're in the deepest recession since the 30s & there was no discussion of rolling back bush's tax cuts to the top 1%, for example. but lots of talk of laying off state employees, forced time off, social security "reform" (i.e. benefit cuts), etc.

education? no child left behind is still the law of the land, & privatization is ongoing.

military? expanded war.

ooh, soo scared the pubs might "win".

[Enthusiast]

94. You are suggesting

Obama is "far left"? Who is this far left you speak of?

[hansberrym]

37. Another example of the wide difference! :-)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x94448

[Vidar]

40. K&R.

[Jamastiene]

41. K&R Does a "far left" even really exist in America?

It seems like being the slightest bit left of center gets called the "far left" any more. That's pretty disgusting too.

K&R

[noiretextatique]

42. it's really quite an insane comparison

totally lacking in rational thought. it is a meme used by people who cast themselves as pragmatists, grown-ups, etc. there is nothing on the left that remotely resembles fox news, or the legion of other rw propaganda organs. there is nothing "far left" about a public option or even the single payer options...both are pragmatic solutions to the problem, and a majority of americans know that. i wish there were far more "far leftists" with the supposed power that people project onto us. some of the comments in this thread just make me want to :puke: "similar tactics" "forcing us to live under their version of utopia" do you wonder, as i do, if these so-called pragmatists would support equal rights for women (well, we know many pragmatists are willing to sell-out women, don't we?), and for gays (just wait here at the back of the bus, while we compromise with bigots), and for african-americans (nope...no racism here)? i wonder if any of the progress the "far left" made happen in this country could happen now, given the false belief that comprise is somehow automatically a noble, and even practical strategy. sad state of affairs. i feel more discouraged now than i did when ronald reagan was elected. the rw has done a fine job.

[Hydra]

44. Of course it is

"Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty."
Simone Weil

There are a LOT of people feeling the "duty" lately. As a "Far Leftist," the only thing I ever agreed with the far right on is that more Gov't is bad if all they're going to do is enrich their cronies and imprison people.

[JAbuchan08]

46. Thanks for that, it seems that being extremely vocal about your views

is considered the same thing as being extremist IN your views.
It's absolutely ridiculous.

Unless you are talking about ELF or PETA, there IS no far-left in this country, and even in those two cases their tactics are much more extremist than their views.

[treestar]

43. I think it is a circle rather than a straight line

And the far right and far left actually come together at some anarchist-libertarian point.

[Hydra]

45. If that's true

then the "center" is total Fascism.

Huh. That would explain a lot.

[JAbuchan08]

47. LOL, great point.

[treestar]

51. Where would you get that?

fascism is not as far right as the extremes who want no government control of anything.

It wouldn't be the center, it would be the other side of the circle, which is the actual center.

If you are just bitter you don't contribute much.

[Hydra]

54. No, you just made a point by accident and I ran with it

You said that on the left and the right if you go far enough, you find no government. that would mean that in the center, you find gov't at the apex of its power and the individual input and free will at its lowest. Fascism.

[Political Heretic]

48. What people are noticing in common are activists bases - its got nothing to do with left and right.

Of course there are similarities between groups using direct action to further their cause.

But pointing that out seems pretty irrelevant to me, its the cause that matters. And the causes are complete opposites.

[Umbral]

49. Besides, the spectrum has shifted so far to the right, I don't even know what 'far left' means.

Not that that matters to those using it as some sort of insult.

[treestar]

52. The further left you get the more government involvement

That's why the four square model works better. There is an authoritarian left - those who would have government run the economy. there is the authoritarian right, which would have the government have authority over social life.

[eridani]

82. In Britain, "far left" = "moderate socially liberal Tory" n/t

[juno jones]

50. I wish they'd also get off the 'negativity' horse as well

Many of the 'negative' posts are by people who have experienced the world of shit that is our bottom-tier healthcare in this country.
We are not seeing the problems of the working poor adequately represented, but if we speak out, we are called 'debbie downers' or 'negative nellies' by those who mostly 'got theirs' and will not really be affected much by these bills. Of course all those rose-glassed optimists are peddling the same maudlin victorian 'concern' for the poor which didn't help the climbing boys in the day, and isn't going to help their equivalents now.

The poor are not children, we are not 'unfortunate fallen flowers' we are not stupid. We know when we are being talked about in front of our faces as if we weren't present and we are tired of the table being set for everyone but us.

[Hydra]

64. Hehe

Don't worry, they're all coming down to be our guests at the bottom. They aren't aware of that fact, of course. If they were, they'd be as outraged as we are.

[hfojvt]

55. is it okay then if we just say

there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two?

[Greyhound]

56. K&R.

[BrklynLiberal]

57. No argument here.

[krawhitham]

58. Everyone wants a PO, those who would kill the bill because it does not have a PO are "FAR LEFT"

[WeDidIt]

60. Too bad, the far left IS as batshit crazy as the far right

If you think you're far left, well, there you go.

[The Gunslinger]

61. There was a time where the so called "far left" was just being a Democrat

Things have move to the right.

[Hannah Bell]

76. according to fox news, it still it. so it's funny to see the dlc types taking over fox

talking points.

[Kaleva]

89. When was that?

[scentopine]

62. Still searching for liberals in America - are there any left?

[NorthCarolina]

63. Its just the DLC crowd joining with the GOP to once again work to marginalize

and defame "Liberalism" because Liberals have once again begun to find a voice on the public stage. Ignore them and continue to speak the truth...it is the "truth" these right-of-center *centrists* hate the most because it exposes them for what they truly are.

[Usrename]

65. yep!

[bridgit]

66. makes sense

[JonQ]

68. Equal? No, but there are alot of similiarities

basically those on either extremes don't really seem to like people living their own lives and seek to control them. The motivations and tactis are different perhaps, but the basic logic and end result are very similiar.

[parts]

132. very true.

Like it or not, dogma in politics is never a good thing.

[liquid diamond]

69. They both constantly bash the President.

Do you deny that?

[jgraz]

71. If you can't tell left from right, you probably should leave politics to the adults.

Mkay?

[liquid diamond]

85. I can tell them apart alright.

But what I find disturbing is how they have joined forces to attack our president.

[Enthusiast]

97. Advocates of the public option

are disappointed and are angry with President Obama. They have hardly "joined forces" with the RW to attack our president. Where do you get this fantasy shit?

[JVS]

113. But they're mean to the President!!!

[jgraz]

125. And we know what a wilting little violet he is.

I bet he cries himself to sleep every night.

[sabrina 1]

83. Did the far-right vote for this president?

That's one difference.

Did the far-right campaign to get a Democratic Majority in all three branches of government?

That's another difference.

Did the far-right support providing a universal health care system where every American receives the best quality health care regardless of age, race or religion?

One more difference.

Does the far-right support a woman's right to choose?

Yet one more difference.

Does the far right agree that there should a separation of Church and State?

I could go on, but there are so many differences I would be here all night.

I can't think of any similarities at all.

Can think of where both left and right agreed on some things. But then, their reasons for their respective positions are so different, it's impossible to say, even on those issues, that they are 'exactly the same'.

One issue was the Wall St. bailouts. A huge majority were against them. If that had been put to a vote by the American people, instead of their so-called representatives, Wall St. would be history, unless they could have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.

The other this health care bill. Across the board, people are against it for so many different reasons, there is no way to even compare the different groups.

Even within each group, there are differences. But one part of the bill, once it is known to them, that people across the spectrum oppose, is the individual mandates. Sometimes there is an extraordinary alliance of different factions which doesn't happen often, but when it does, history is often changed. The American Revolution was one of those times. Many people who were so different in so many ways, culturally, economically, politically, did agree about one thing, the 'Mother country' was treating all of them unfairly. And those unlikely alliances helped change the course of history.

This is the first time in my lifetime that I have seen people from all dfifferent political backgrounds, Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats and Independents agree on one issue, and the first time for me that I actually cannot defend Democrats on the issue of mandates. I find such a system to be something I would have expected from Bush/Cheney, but never a Democrat.

As for far-Left? That has to be a joke. There is no such thing as 'far-Left' in the US. Really, when someone says that, I wonder if they've ever left their small corner of the world.

[Enthusiast]

98. Another well done, Sabrina. nt

[JVS]

115. +1

[liberal_at_heart]

74. I am not afraid to call myself a progressive

I don't care what other people think of me or call me. I am a progressive and republicans or democrats insulting me is not going to change who I am, what I think, or who I vote for. The greatest part of it all is no matter what names they call me they cannot control my vote, so they can insult me until they are blue in the face.

[glitch]

77. They don't need to control your vote

they just need to count it.

[MisterP]

79. I blame two things: the idea that both sides of any issue are morally equal

or immoral; "far left" and "far right" are lumped together as intolerant and anti-American--and thus inherent dangers to democratic discourse that must be repressed for "democracy" to be able to survive

the other is Richard Hofstadter, a moderate conservative historian (he was one even when he was a Marxist!): to him, the consensus was wise and level-headed, against "irrationalists" like George Lincoln Rockwell were threats because of their "extremism" (not so much because their policies were WRONG, mind you!)

[inthebrain]

81. Folks are more radcally left than others would have us believe or even acknowledge

usually when I hear that dismisve line of talk I know the speaker is a FixedNews, MSNBCorporation, or CorporateNN KoolAide drinker. Life in the real world is very different than what is portrayed on these networks. Sometimes I wish some folks would get in touch with it and develop some class consciousness..

[Kaleva]

86. They use the same methods in an attempt to achieve their goals.

And they view everyone who is not with them as a member of the opposite extreme.

[TheWebHead]

87. I think everyone has a gut reaction to support anything that's an "option"

it just gets a little trickier when it's more fully explained that they're paying for it and that more than likely the savings would be negligible or non-existent since the health insurance space as it stands involves many non profits and for profits with after tax margins of 3%... When a government run plan starting from scratch employs lifers with union jobs and generous pensions competes with the experienced survival of the fittest private insurers who have razor thin margins, I can't imagine the results would've been pretty unless they paid out medicare rates to providers or ran operations with huge losses under the implicit guarantee the government to bail them out, either of which would open an entirely different can of worms.


as for Obama, if he's getting labeled socialist every other sentence from the right, if the left starts howling and calling him a corporatist, those not on the political fringe will start saying, okay, the wingnuts on either side don't seem to like him, so that's reassuring.

[Atticus]

88. Well, according to the MSM, Lieberman, Nelson, Baucus, etc., are "MODERATE" Democrats. I guess that

makes me a communist---at least!

[Enthusiast]

99. Yes, according to the M$M.

And wonder why they want us to believe that load of horse shit. We are also led to believe those in favor of the public option are some sort of wild eyed liberals. And if you are against a war based on lies you are a crazy peace nic.

[nofurylike]

90. like hamsher? and those saying we ought to ally w/teabaggers

now?

yep, me too. i got pretty sick reading those.

[earth mom]

91. The far right hates socialism, the far left loves socialism. Simple as that.

Dinos and DLCers have an agenda to muddy the waters to make themselves look good, but anyone with half a brain can see through their lying bullshit. :puke:

[Norrin Radd]

92. The so-called "far left" is actually the "true left."

[cali]

95. Codswallop. Jane Hamsher and the assholes at Counterpunch are hardly

the "true left".

[LeftishBrit]

107. I don't consider Counterpunch as 'far left'

It represents a very mixed bag of people ranging from real far-leftists, to those who cannot be considered as other than EXTREME right. Paul Craig Roberts is far-right by anyone's definition!

[NorthCarolina]

108. Nor are they exclusively representative of "Far Left Americans". nt

[TicketyBoo]

96. Not equal,

but equally obnoxious.

[Enthusiast]

102. Advocates of the public option

are equally obnoxious to those on the 'far right'. Am I hearing you correctly? Are you out of your fucking mind?

[TicketyBoo]

119. That's not what I said,

so I guess you didn't hear me correctly, since I, too, am an advocate of a public option (although Medicare For All is what I truly advocate).

No, I'm not out of my mind.

Those who are equally obnoxious (so far to the left that their left ear touches the floor) can be ignored here, however.

[Enthusiast]

123. I've never seen them or

heard them. How about some quotes? Who are these obnoxious people you speak of? Are these the bad people that want transparency. Are these the bad people that want the financial services industry to be regulated?

Even if these bad people exist they could NEVER be as obnoxious as the fascist RWer.

[TicketyBoo]

127. I don't care to take them off "Ignore"

long enough to find quotes.

I haven't seen them in awhile because I finally got disgusted enough to use the Ignore feature.

No it has nothing to do with transparency or regulation of the financial services industry, both of which I support.

Even if these bad people exist they could NEVER be as obnoxious as the fascist RWer.

The simple fact is, they are every bit as obnoxious as the right-wingers. Sad but true.

(Now, maybe you agree with them, so they may not be obnoxious to you. Obnoxious is in the eye of the beholder.)

[DWilliamsamh]

100. The most salient point is the differing agenda's.... (K&R)

The passion may look similar, put the "point," the "aim" of that passion is completely different. And of course you are 100% correct that it just can't be that 80% of the American people are "far left." if that was the case the progressives would have 80+ Senators, and 350 Representatives. OBVIOUSLY this is not the case, and I am not sure I would want that to be the situation.

[old mark]

103. 2 differences:

1: There is not much of the "far left" around anymore, while the "far right" seems to be gaining support.

2: The "far right" votes. The "far left" does not.

mark

[TicketyBoo]

137. I think the far left

does vote because they are every bit as passionate about their politics as the far right are. That's where the "far" comes in.

[LeftishBrit]

104. I agree. Especially the way that 'far left' seems to be used in American politics.

It is true that authoritarian leaders who impose an ideology to maintain power for themselves often end up resembling each other - whether the ideology is explicitly right-wing (Fascism), religious (Christianity or Islam) or supposedly left-wing (Communism). However, the commonality is between the authoritarianism of the leaders, not between the ideologies. Once a leader is prepared to oppress his (or more rarely her) people and allow the strong to trample on the weak in the name of their ideology, then their government is fundamentally right-wing, even if it is imposed in the name of a left-wing ideology.

In any case, most people who are described as 'far left' in the American context are anything but. They are centre-left or even centrist by the standards of many other countries. Universal publicly-funded healthcare; a social safety net; opposition to the death penalty - these are not far left; they are policies shared by all mainstream Europaean governments, including those of the centre-right. A Europaean government that does not share these values is considered *far right*.

There is a huge difference between the far left and the far right in terms of ideologies. And that is even when we are considering the two just in terms of general economic and social policies. When the far right's xenophobia, racism, sexism and general intolerance of minorities is put ino the equation - the gap becomes enormous.

However, it is not just anti-leftists who have been pushing this meme on DU. I have on several occasions seen people argue that sometimes far right-wingers are telling 'truths' that others are hiding, or that progressives should join hands with the likes of Ron Paul supporters or even 'teabaggers' to form an anti-elite, anti-establishment movement. This if ever put into practice could be EXTREMELY dangerous, enabling the far right to use a populist image as a bait for encouraging racism and oppression - as happened in the 1930s. Opposing the status quo because you want something better does NOT mean that you have anything in common with those who oppose the status quo because they want something worse!

The far right everywhere are the ultimate enemy of all that is good in the world; and we should NEVER enable them!

[iamthebandfanman]

105. definitely not the same BUT

they do have a fine line between them at some point...

i tend to think the line between fascism and communism is actually pretty thin depending on who is placed in charge... assuming youre dealing with a totalitatian/authoritarian government in both cases....

as long as theres greed , power, and money involved.....

[tomg]

109. I couldn't agree more, but

I think part of the problem for discussion lies in three areas. And there is no "equivalence" for three reasons.

The first is what constitutes "far left" and "far right." How are those terms being used. There is an organized, well-funded and powerful "far right" in the United States. Tea baggers and the like are simply foot soldiers. Visible and Vocal, but hardly institutionalized. The far left (CPUSA) and others - politically - PETA and others - on, say single issue, - are hardly well funded and powerful. So what do we mean by "far right" and "far left." I am DSOA.I wanted single payer. Does that make me "far left"? While I am far from the happiest camper over the Healthcare Bill, I am not about to join with the likes of Norquist ( and I am still waiting to see what happens in House and I still think it is a start). For that matter, my position would make all of my friends in the UK who are conservative, "far left." ( When I asked one what she thought of changing the British system, she said "I am a conservative, not a bloody idiot.")

The second concerns the relationship of that "far right" and that "far left" to the respective parties. Take Norquist and Hamsher as "representative." Norquist has always had a place at the table - for years and years. Norquist is a major player in the Republican Party. His views are promulgated on the level of policy. Surely no one would make the same claim for Hamsher. The simple fact that major figures in the Republican party ( and I am not talking about Bachmann et al) show up at Tea party rallies and bow to the far right, whereas the "far left" ( as defined by "moderates," although not me) are often vilified by the Democrats should suggest there is no true equivalency. The practical purpose of a "far left" and a "far right" is to help keep their respective parties relatively honest. The far right wing of the Republican party with its "litmus" tests, with the co-sponsorship of Conservative Political Action Conference by the John Birch Society, has taken over the Republican Party.

Finally, though, rather than simply limiting the problem to DU, there has been a concerted effort on the part of MSM to appear to be "balanced," so that whenever they call out far right Republicans for the incivility of their language or the extremism of some of their positions, they feel necessary to include a Democrat doing "the same thing." Hence, they equate the lies of Palin calling for death panels with, say, Howard Dean. Kristoll and Krauthammer as "commentators" are equated with Krugmann. Do we really think that Rachel Maddow and Glenn Beck are equivalent? Whenever they look at the tea baggers calling for Obama's impeachment because he is not a citizen or carrying guns to town halls, they have to root around to find one or two at the fringe of the left side to say "see, we are fair. they all do it." In fact, if one takes into account my first and second point, no.

[LeftishBrit]

124. Great post...

and yes, 'For that matter, my position would make all of my friends in the UK who are conservative, "far left." ( When I asked one what she thought of changing the British system, she said "I am a conservative, not a bloody idiot.")'

Even Maggie Thatcher, though she weakened the NHS by underfunding, could not and perhaps would not attempt to get rid of it.

[JVS]

110. People should be banned for saying that because...

" Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."

If people get banned for being unsupportive of democratic candidates by saying that the two parties are equally bad, then people should also be banned for being unsupportive of progressive ideals by claiming that adherence to the ideals is no better than adherence to right wing ideals.

[JVS]

111. You would have gotten more recs had you posted at a time when more people were not around because...

of the festivities.

+1 from me

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

114. The term "far left" is the new "liberal", being deliberately used to quiet dissent. It's disgusting

and becoming pervasive here on DU of all places.
,
This site was set up for progressives and sometimes I feel like asking posters... Reagan or Senator McCarthy, is that you?

[Echo In Light]

116. Yes. And the differences re right/left are substantial, despite the want of some to align them

... for what are very obvious reasons to those of us on the left.

All it takes to be 'far left' today is to be against war, especially America's phony war$, and therefore against the immorality of them, and the corporate rule in an equally sham rep democracy that allows elites to engage in that sort of war profiteering/expansion of empire and its intere$ts by framing their war$ of aggression as retaliatory even though they're offensive, not defensive.

Far right is the antithesis of those qualities: hates anti-war types, belligerently dismisses the moral concerns espoused by 'loony lefties,' and is basically authoritarian in nature, meaning, people who unquestioningly favor strident adherence to authority and hierarchical based systems and "traditions."

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

126. You said it far more eloquently than I could. Thank you Echo

and wishing you and yours the very best, in all ways, always.

:hi:

[Stevenmarc]

117. Not equal in the slightest, the far right get their shit done, the far left argue

amongst themselves about who isn't left enough and let the ball drop

[Aviation Pro]

118. Since....

....the nutjob Right and the looney Left are lost to me I think I'll go about campaigning for the President's reelection in 2012 and ensuring that the Democratic party retains a healthy majority in Congress.

That probably speaks to 80% of the nation.

[Iggo]

133. Who says "far left"? Bill O'Reilly and what other assholes?

[natrat]

141. just take a look around here , sadly

[MellowDem]

139. People usually have a hard time defining...

far-left and far-right. But where true extremists are concerned, they are all the same to me.

[Shagbark Hickory]

142. nt

[blindpig]

143. It is absurd

There's a bunch around here who would blur the distinction between right and left. The distinction is simply this: the Right is on the side of the Capitalist and the Left is on the side of the Workers.

Which side are you on?

[shanti]

145. infiltration

that's what i'm seeing, and i've been here for a long time. ymmv