Which Side Are You On?

I neglected to site <a href="http://www.rense.com/general78/mill.htm">http://www.rense.com/general78/mill.htm</a><br />
the source ofand inspiration of what I wrote<br />
and there are the usuall typos ans spelling errors <br />
mea culpa<br />
the firing squad awaits <br />
<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />

I neglected to site <a href="http://www.rense.com/general78/mill.htm">http://www.rense.com/general78/mill.htm</a><br />
the source ofand inspiration of what I wrote<br />
and there are the usuall typos ans spelling errors <br />
mea culpa<br />
the firing squad awaits <br />
<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />

There are not two clearly defined "sides". There are individuals and there are groups of individuals who are like-minded and cooperate for mutual benefit.

Lakoff has some interesting things to say, but he obviously brings his own biases into his analysis of liberals and conservatives. But he's right in that the fundamental value of conservatives is self-discipline, which is why they are better organized than liberals, whose desire to "nurture" everyone instead of take decisive action places them at a disadvantage in the battlefield of ideas.

"Strict parent" types know how to organize, to marshall resources to achieve well-defined goals. Look at Vive on the other hand. The statement "one no, many yeses" came to define the anti-globalization movement, but also showed its fundamental weakness - they couldn't agree on what they wanted to replace that which they agreed was bad.

Further on Lakoff's parenting metaphors, I think the job of a good parent is to render him/herself obsolete one the child has become an adult. People get into trouble in life because of a combination of bad luck and bad decisions. The trick in coming up with a welfare state style support system is trying to help people through their bad luck without also rewarding/subsidizing their bad decisions. That's where I feel the "nurturant parent" liberals get it wrong, and why they end up promoting perpetual dependency on government.

To the readership at large an open response to the above reply to my topic<br />
<br />
Not being heavily so heavily invested in the position of left n right as a means of identifying political attitudes: old hat thinking, gives one the opportunity to reframe in ways unacceptable to those who still are. <br />
It is this very like-mindedness that becomes problematic.<br />
Pointing out the bias ‘to my way of thinking only serves to underline and support habitual thinking: old think and I agree as I had come to the same conclusions Lakoff has prior to stumbling upon his works in the area of which you speak, conservative thinking as having discipline towards their goal.,. but the distimtions bwtween the two, hence ‘sides’ may be far less than one assumes. There are other factors at play in this old and continuous waltz. There is no need to , as you say, to ‘nuture’ ”everyone” There are however those in need of nurturing. What you’ve describes as the distinction between liberal and conservatine thinking shows only *your* bias, and in a somewhat condescending manner, when viewed forn the perspective of liberal thinking , but lets not go there and detract from what may result in a paradigm shift, or a gestalt, if you will. <br />
<br />
Without apologising for either side position, or however one chooses to frame their argument it is necessary to recognise the bias’ of each and while consensus. Within those who oppose globalisation there is indeed fragmentation which is of course exploited by their opposition, exploited in the manner abhorrent to what you identify as liberal thought. BUT! Having said that I see merit in this thought-“ The trick in coming up with a welfare state style support system is trying to help people through their bad luck without also rewarding/subsidizing their bad decisions.” And whil it is your opinion the liberals went wrong in their manner of solution the conservatives have thus far not implemented a plan that truly breaks the cycle of perpetual dependency on welfare, in fact they have cemented in place that dependency with their policies <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Judith Moriarty in her article “The Cost of living is driving us out” to be found on Rense show it is more than bad luck and bad decisions that create welfare for people Ans I will only mention the welfare state big biz receives <br />
<br />
Although I expect you will find fault with the information in the following, it is none the less an example that provides dignity for those who use it <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=566">http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=566</a> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.helsinki.fi/lehdet/uh/41997q.html">http://www.helsinki.fi/lehdet/uh/41997q.html</a> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Sundstr%C3%B6m">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Sundstr%C3%B6m</a> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1548">http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1548</a> <br />
<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />

<blockquote> they couldn't agree on what they wanted to replace that which they agreed was bad. </blockquote>Quite possibly because there is no single "replacement". To think that there is indicates a lock-step mentality every bit as flawed as that exhibited by the agreed-upon "bad". <p>---<br>"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." <br />
-Max Planck<br />
<br />

I acknowledge my bias, but argue that it is no greater than Lakoff's, who is his very metaphors displays his bias - think the positive connotations of the word "nurturant" versus the negative associations with the word "strict". Coming from my biases I would have labeled them "indulgent" versus "strong" parenting. The difference is that I don't pretend to be able to speak authoritatively about the thinking of the liberal-left, because I know I can't truly get inside their heads. I can only describe them from the outsider's perspective, which as you've pointed out, will be as reflective of my own personal worldview as of those I describe.

All abstractions lie, but some are useful. Left and right are a blunt model of political views, but they are a useful simplication. Adding the second axis of liberatarian/anarchist versus authoritarian strengthens the model. But as an individualist, how can I argue that we and individuals are not to some degree unique in our political thinking?

It is that diversity of thought which makes true representative government a virtual impossibility. We buy politicians off the rack. The sleeves may be a bit too long, and the collar a little too tight, but we try to pick the cut and look that best fits us.

I choose to back away from argement, at this time

I must repete I am pleased with your present style of exchange
Thank you for that
Dio

---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake