The False Left–Right Paradigm - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14949958
"The false left–right paradigm is the political theory that members of opposing political parties such as Republican and Democrat deceptively share common interests and goals, as a one body ruling authority over the masses. The two parties act to create divisiveness and influence the general population while keeping control of the political spectrum. The false left–right paradigm political theory is closely related to theory of Inverted totalitarianism and Managed Democracy.

The false left–right paradigm theorizes that opposing political groups use their influence over the establishment media to dramatize party warfare distraction, in grand performances of bureaucratic rivalry meant to propagandize and divide the populace. Psychological deception is coordinated on all levels of politics and fed through controlled media outlets to divert attention away from the ruling class's hidden agendas. By drawing attention to differences between two political systems, ideologies, races, and classes, the political groups obscure and divide unity among the masses. The tactic creates confusion and frustration among the population, enabling the global elite to increase and consolidate their wealth and power through maintaining an illusion of a two-party system of checks and balances.

Former Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) archivist and Georgetown University professor Carroll Quigley, who is known as being President Bill Clinton’s mentor, wrote in his 1966 book "Tragedy and Hope"—

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers."

"Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.""
__________________________________________________

Guided democracy, also called managed democracy, is a formally democratic government that functions as a de facto autocracy. Such governments are legitimized by elections that are free and fair but do not change the state's policies, motives, and goals.

In other words, the establishment controls elections so that the people can exercise all their rights without truly changing public policy. Under managed democracy, the establishment's continuous use of propaganda techniques prevents the electorate from having a significant impact on policy.

The concept of a "guided democracy" was developed in the 20th century by Walter Lippmann in his seminal work Public Opinion (1922) and by Edward Bernays in his work Crystallizing Public Opinion.

___________________________________________

Inverted totalitarianism reverses things. It is all politics all of the time but a politics largely untempered by the political. Party squabbles are occasionally on public display, and there is a frantic and continuous politics among factions of the party, interest groups, competing corporate powers, and rival media concerns. And there is, of course, the culminating moment of national elections when the attention of the nation is required to make a choice of personalities rather than a choice between alternatives. What is absent is the political, the commitment to finding where the common good lies amidst the welter of well-financed, highly organized, single-minded interests rabidly seeking governmental favors and overwhelming the practices of representative government and public administration by a sea of cash.
#14950164
This is a lot of words. What it ignores is that the founders of the republic created a strong constitutional government within which all governance occurs.

The similarity of aims of both parties is not some grand conspiracy. It is baked in. People in government begin under tight control of that constitution.

Then there is the fact that for much of its existence the US has been a happy and prosperous country. It does not take a great conspiracy to explain why politicians who rely on this happy prosperity to remain in power take great pains to not break it.

Now we probably ought to consider what great issues 'should' divide us, that don't. What are the great issues of the day? If you look at them individually they are not problems requiring elemental change. They are tweaks. Minor problems such as: How much privacy may a person expect? Can a woman get an abortion? Can I carry my gun around? Who should pay an extra few percent in taxes?

It is not a conspiracy that distracts us from larger problems to focus on these minor ones. It is the fact that we do not really have enormous problems with which to contend and which might require massively diverse political organizations to address.

So Sivad. I think your idea is interesting. I think though that the authors missed the elephant in the room. Remember the old saying? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
#14950228
@Sivad
Apart from the constitution the political parties are contrained by the electorate, you just can't get elected on a wacky jacky ticket because you need millions of people to vote for it in order for it to have a chance and they won't do that. If you want extremist parties to have a chance you have to get rid of the electorate like they did under communism.
#14950946
Drlee wrote: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."


The current system obviously is highly broken.

Despite the fact that productivity has increased ever since, the average US citizen has less income than in 1970. They also have extremely laughable amounts of vacation time, a poor and expensive health service, have to sink themselves in debt in order to study at the university, etc.

How many wars is the USA currently in ? They even right now commit genocide at the side of Saudi Arabia, in Jemen.

The USA denies the existence of the climate catastrophe.

The financial collapse of 2008 had to be financed by the general public, and yet the banks are still not regulared so strictly that a new collapse is impossible. For comparison Canada didnt had to save even a single bank in 2008 - their banks are strictly regulated, as they should be.

And thats just some highlights. If the USA would actually be a democracy, i.e. the people would rule, none of these things could be true, because they are all against the general interest of the people. They however all serve the interest of the elite very well.
#14952267
Drlee wrote:The similarity of aims of both parties is not some grand conspiracy. It is baked in.


Other countries with FPTP, such as the UK, Canada or Australia, have relevant third parties though. It's curious that the US has none at all, not even at the state level to my knowledge.
#14952311
Rugoz wrote:Other countries with FPTP, such as the UK, Canada or Australia, have relevant third parties though. It's curious that the US has none at all, not even at the state level to my knowledge.


FPTP is not the only factor. There's ballot access, debate access, media access, campaign financing, gerrymandering, etc, and the two parties collude on all of those fronts to rig the system to lock out third parties and independents.
#14952478
For all the talk about discussing the issues, politics in America has little to do with public policy. It provides little control of power-elite programs by the general populace. It is primarily a costly exercise in image-building, name-calling and gossip, and it serves as a kind of society-wide carnival and psychological safety valve. Conflict abounds within the process, but the policy oriented concerns which motivate many of the party activists- and more of the general electorate than most social scientists realize tend to get lost amidst the personal conflicts between ambitious candidates who are often seeking the rewards and excitement of higher office for their own personal gain and ego satisfaction.
The pluralist notion that public policy is influenced to any significant extent by the will of the majority through the competition between the two political parties is largely misguided. "Politics" is mostly for selecting ambitious, relatively issueless, upwardly mobile lawyers who have learned how to advance themselves by finding the rhetoric and rationalizations to implement both the narrow and general policies of the bipartisan power elite. "Ironically enough," concludes a skeptical political scientist, Michael Parenti, "the one institutional arrangement that is ostensibly designed to register the will of the many serves to legitimize the rule of the privileged few."

The Candidate-Selection Process
excerpted from the book
The Powers That Be
by G. William Domhoff
#14953429
“Bipartisanship” Hides the Real Power Equation That No One Talks About
By David Sirota

Is the real problem afflicting our political system a lack of so-called “bipartisanship” or is it actually too much bipartisanship?

Anyone who spends 5 minutes around the halls of power in the nation’s capital knows that Washington is dominated by one party: The Money Party, and that the People Party is far outnumbered - even after this election. Look no further than votes on the bankruptcy bill, the energy bill, the class action bill, China PNTR and NAFTA to figure out which politicans who call themselves Republicans and Democrats actually belong to the Money Party and which politicians actually belong to the People Party. The Establishment pretends this paradigm doesn’t exist - they need the drama of Democrats vs. Republicans to sell newspapers, and more importantly, hiding the existence of the real power equation is in the interest of all the major for-profit corporations that own the media.

Let’s also be honest - this Kabuki Theater is sometimes reinforced by the Netroots and by self-described “progressive” institutions in Washington. There are various reasons for this. Sometimes its just easier to pretend that life is a cartoonish struggle between Blue and Red, with Blue always being Moral and Just, and Red always being Evil. Other times, it is a matter of financial pressures - some of the self-anointed progressive leaders and institutions in Washington are actually very much a part of the Money Party, both in terms of thier funding and their ideology.

What this election really was was a surge for the People Party, because so many candidates were elected on anti-Money Party themes (opposition to pay-to-play corruption, opposition to lobbyist-written trade pacts, etc.). This explains why in the election’s aftermath we hear such repetitive calls for “bipartisanship”: they are really repetitive and not-so-hidden attempts to make sure the Money Party that includes both Republicans and Democrats remains dominant and that the election’s mandate is ignored. The thing they really do not want is for the People Party to assert itself against the Money Party.
#14953432
@Sivad
Ofcourse it is true. You won’t find much acceptance of the idea because we have been thoroughly propagandized since birth. Most of our ‘free thinking’ is geared to feed rather than destroy this mechanism. We even read about the vast amounts of money billionaires throw into our elections, but it does not really register with us what it means. We have reached a level now where they don’t even hide the truth from us and we still refuse to see it.
#14953443
Nearly Every Member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Still Takes Corporate PAC Money

An analysis by The Intercept of the 2017-18 campaign cycle reveals that the vast majority of CPC members are similarly vulnerable, taking not just money from union and advocacy group PACs, but significant sums of corporate PAC cash as well. Not coincidentally, given the reliance on big money, hardly any members of the CPC rely on small individual donors.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Fundraising Sources
[center-img]https://theintercept.com/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/10/chart-02-stack-01-1539381922-849x1024.jpg[/center-img]

[center-img]https://theintercept.com/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/10/chart-02-stack-03-1539381926-849x1024.jpg[/center-img]

Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC Contributions by Category
[center-img]https://theintercept.com/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/10/chart-03-stack-02-1539382072-860x1024.jpg[/center-img]

[center-img]https://theintercept.com/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/10/chart-03-stack-03-1539382075-860x1024.jpg[/center-img]
#14953601
Clearly Sivad you wish to slam progressives. We can see that. You would not dare show the figures for republicans.

What is disturbing about your position is that even though republicans take even more payola you seem to believe that it is OK. It is only bad for progressives. If you thought through your position you would conclude that even though progressives and conservatives alike feed at the same trough, progressives at least advocate for and occasionally do something for the masses. I cannot think of a single thing the republicans have done since coming to power under trump that is specifically designed to help the poor, the disenfranchised or even the middle class.

I get you are looking for justification to hate progressives but you are making a fool of yourself. It is not progressives who are practicing case after case of voter suppression. It is the republican party. And they are not hiding it. They do it openly and laugh about it. Their followers are simply not smart enough to understand what they are up to or in the case of the few who are smart enough, patriotic enough to do something about it.

Your post made a fool out of you sport. You wanted to show that the progressives were as sold out as the republicans are. They are not. Look a Bernie Sanders; perhaps the most progressive at all. Look at your numbers. And look at who, based on contributions, is the people's choice. You make a point alright. The only problem is that the point you made destroyed your political position.

All politicians are sold out to money. All to much of it from corporations. Progressives support overturning citizen's united. Do you?
#14953657
Ah @Drlee , you don’t think Trump giving the poor jobs is doing something for them? Your insistence every conservative is mentally inferior displays your own hypocrisy. The people you claim to want to help are not the highest on the IQ charts. Every time you attack conservatives intelligence, you display the falseness of your concern for the disenfranchised.
#14953705
Ah @Drlee , you don’t think Trump giving the poor jobs is doing something for them?


Nice try. Shall we talk about his application to import foreign workers to Mar Lago last year? The dozens of law suits that claim he did not pay them? The union busting he advocates? His administration's opposition to raising the minimum wage? Claiming that Trump is a "job creator" is absurd. So are the people who employ illegal aliens. Do you support them too?

Your insistence every conservative is mentally inferior displays your own hypocrisy.


I don't assert that. I was clear. But since YOU did not understand let me be clear.

People who support the current republican grab for power from the people to whom the constitution grants it are behaving stupidly. Either they do not understand, have fallen for barely concealed propaganda or belong to the group which does not care.




The people you claim to want to help are not the highest on the IQ charts. Every time you attack conservatives intelligence, you display the falseness of your concern for the disenfranchised.


IQ has little to do with it. That is your invention. And it is not even a good try. I am going to continue to call Trump supporters stupid because they are behaving stupidly. No free lunch Skippy.

For example. They forfeit their right to be called conservative when the support massive unfunded tax cuts raising the deficit to astronomical levels. Conservatives do not do that. They forfeit their right to claim to be conservatives when they turn their back on free trade or practice voter nullification.

Conservatives today use a term that has been carefully co opted by Oligarchs to consolidate their power with people who do not even understand what is in their own interest. Example. Someone with no health insurance voting to cut medicaid; the only program that gives them hope for health care at all.
#14953714
@Drlee , the Constitution did not give ‘power to the people’. It gave them the House. One sixth of the government and only selected elites got to vote for that. Appealing to the constitution to support liberal views is ridiculous. Liberal views are only represented by ‘changes to the constitution’. Therefore, are anti constitutional as their globalism and open borders clearly show. They are international socialists who are being used to bring about world Oligarchy. They are ignorant pawns. They are currently celebrating the rise of open socialists in their party. Many Republicans may be dumb, but they are not dumb enough to fall for what the Democrats are telling the ‘disenfranchised’.
#14953890
Liberal views are only represented by ‘changes to the constitution’.


You mean like the bill of rights?
#14953896
Drlee wrote:You mean like the bill of rights?


Obviously they are changes, so yes. My point is the value of the constitution is not in it’s ‘point of view’. Even our Supreme Court got this wrong. The value is in changing it to meet the current point of view. Therefore, it is wrong for anyone to argue the Constitution validates their view. This destroys the real value of our constitution.
This was what upset me about Kavanaugh, not his teenage sex life.
#14953903
You are confusing Republican/Democrat issues and you are confusing the terms Conservative and Democrat.

Therefore, are anti constitutional as their globalism and open borders clearly show.


So you don't mean democrats here, right? Because Obama deported more folks than Bush and more than Trump has in the same timeframe. So you mean some other "liberals" Not democrats.

They are international socialists who are being used to bring about world Oligarchy.


You mean republicans with this statement. I agree that republicans are working for a "world oligarchy". Look at their budget busting wealthy relief bill with which they are so proud.

Certainly you do not mean that democrats are "international socialists". The very idea is absurd.

They are ignorant pawns. They are currently celebrating the rise of open socialists in their party.


So you do think that democrats are "socialists".

Many Republicans may be dumb...


QFT

You claim to be old. Are you getting forgetful.

Largest social welfare program since Medicare? GW Bush II

Amnesty for Illegal Aliens? Ronald Reagan.

Environmental Protection Agency? Richard Nixon.

Raised Federal Participation in Welfare programs? George H.W. Bush.

Cut government participation in welfare programs by the greatest percentage ever? Bill Clinton.

Americans with Disabilities act? George HW Bush.

Civil Rights Act of 1990? George HW Bush

Banned Import of Semi-Automatic weapons? George H.W. Bush

Reauthorized Clean Air Act? Same guy.

Increase legal immigration to the US 40%? You guessed it.

Increased the funding for the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health? Baby Bush.

Created the larges marine reserve in history? Bush again.

Wanted to allow 12 million guest workers but the democrats prevented him? Bush II

Balance the federal Budget? Clinton

So you see guy you have to stop with the bullshit. Democrats are not socialists anymore than republicans are. Besides. Do try to understand and internalize what socialism is. You appear not to know.

I am of the opinion, and have been for a long tim[…]

What Bible? :?: Trump is selling Trump Bibl[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we[…]

Muscovite’s Slaughter of Indigenous People in Alas[…]