Achievements of Right-Wing politics

[Undesired Walrus]

Hello.

I'd consider myself more liberal than conservative, given my favourable views towards marxism, which is arguably on the left of the board.

But I wish to broaden my horizons, I wish to know about the achievments of Right Wing politics that wussy liberals would be unwilling to admit to being right wing in origin.

I find it extremly depressing when people say 'It is bad to be right wing'. I don't agree with a lot of right wing stances, but this ideology is existing a lot these days. Why is it so frustrating for those of you who know what I am talking about, and why has it exploded onto the scene?

[Lurker]

I'd say welfare reform in the 90's was a positive and it was driven primarily by the right wing.

Lurker

[Darth Rotor]

I'd say welfare reform in the 90's was a positive and it was driven primarily by the right wing.

Lurker

Likewise the budget getting trimmed/low to no deficit, in the same period. Driven by the right side of the aisle, but let's give WJC some credit: he saw it was a good idea, so he threw in with it and embraced it.

DR

[billydkid]

Hello.

I'd consider myself more liberal than conservative, given my favourable views towards marxism, which is arguably on the left of the board.

But I wish to broaden my horizons, I wish to know about the achievments of Right Wing politics that wussy liberals would be unwilling to admit to being right wing in origin.

I find it extremly depressing when people say 'It is bad to be right wing'. I don't agree with a lot of right wing stances, but this ideology is existing a lot these days. Why is it so frustrating for those of you who know what I am talking about, and why has it exploded onto the scene?Ok, so how, in this day and age and after considering recent history, could anyone have a favorable view of Marxism?

[Lurker]

Likewise the budget getting trimmed/low to no deficit, in the same period. Driven by the right side of the aisle, but let's give WJC some credit: he saw it was a good idea, so he threw in with it and embraced it.

I would also credit WJC with the Budget Reconciliation Act which precipitated the good budgets. Still, I agree with your point, although in light of the info below it is not as strong as you suggest for the right wing.

Lurker

ETA (from wiki): Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice-President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the actual bill and the conference report. In the House the bill passed by only one vote, 218-216. President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993.

The bill, which both raised taxes and cut government spending, has been credited as the major cause behind the deficit reduction and eventual surpluses during the 1990s, by sources such as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. [1]

[Upchurch]

Are we talking about traditional right-wing politics (smaller government, balanced budget, etc) or modern neo-conservative right-wing politics?

[Billdave2]

Likewise the budget getting trimmed/low to no deficit, in the same period. Driven by the right side of the aisle, but let's give WJC some credit: he saw it was a good idea, so he threw in with it and embraced it.

DR

A lot of this came about after the midterm elections that saw the Republicans gain control of the House. WJC brought in Dick Morris(conservative advisor to Reagan) and for a brief period of time there was actual cooperation and effort made by both sides to actually compromise. The budget reform was resited becuase of the tax increases, which were then rolled back by GWB, which revived the economy that was just starting to sag in 2000. Deficit increases have been because of increased spending, tax revenues went up despite (or more likely) because of the tax cuts. Even with the larger deficit and the war the economy is still really strong.

[Lurker]

A lot of this came about after the midterm elections that saw the Republicans gain control of the House. WJC brought in Dick Morris(conservative advisor to Reagan) and for a brief period of time there was actual cooperation and effort made by both sides to actually compromise.
No problem here.

The budget reform was resited becuase of the tax increases, which were then rolled back by GWB, which revived the economy that was just starting to sag in 2000. Deficit increases have been because of increased spending, tax revenues went up despite (or more likely) because of the tax cuts. Even with the larger deficit and the war the economy is still really strong.

Let me point out a couple of things here. First off, the deficit started to decrease in 1993 and continued in 1994 when the elections occurred that brought Republicans to power in the House. Note, these Republicans did not take office until 1995. So clearly Clinton and the Dems in power were responsible for the deficit reductions in 1993 and 1994.

By the way, tax revenues ALWAYS go up, that is, until 2001, 2002, and 2003 when revenues actually DECREASED under Bush and the Republicans, even after his first tax cut.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf
page 26 for stats.

[Darth Rotor]

I would also credit WJC with the Budget Reconciliation Act which precipitated the good budgets. Still, I agree with your point, although in light of the info below it is not as strong as you suggest for the right wing.

Lurker

ETA (from wiki): Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill, as did a number of Democrats. Vice-President Al Gore broke a tie in the Senate on both the actual bill and the conference report. In the House the bill passed by only one vote, 218-216. President Clinton signed the bill on August 10, 1993.

The bill, which both raised taxes and cut government spending, has been credited as the major cause behind the deficit reduction and eventual surpluses during the 1990s, by sources such as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. [1]
Good point, except I was referring to the post 1994 "Contract with America" application of the deficit reduction measures. A lot of stuff has been passed that does not seem to make a difference.

Not many on the right agreed with the tax increase, no surprise, nor with GHW Bush's "No New Taxes" tax increase (which hurt his re election platform a bit) but the actual work to drive the deficit down was led by the right.

Good note on Dick Morris from Billdave, thanks. :)

ETA: You covered some of that, sorry to be late. :(

DR

[Billdave2]

No problem here.



Let me point out a couple of things here. First off, the deficit started to decrease in 1993 and continued in 1994 when the elections occurred that brought Republicans to power in the House. Note, these Republicans did not take office until 1995. So clearly Clinton and the Dems in power were responsible for the deficit reductions in 1993 and 1994.

By the way, tax revenues ALWAYS go up, that is, until 2001, 2002, and 2003 when revenues actually DECREASED under Bush and the Republicans, even after his first tax cut.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf
page 26 for stats.

The economy took a beating during 2001-2003 from the comination of 9/11, the WOT, dot com bubble bust, etc. Revenue did decrease during that period but the economy was bouyed by the tax decrease, which helped prevent a massive recession.

[UserGoogol]

Ok, so how, in this day and age and after considering recent history, could anyone have a favorable view of Marxism?

Even though I'm not terribly fond of Marxism (although in the broader sense I think socialism isn't an inherently bad idea), the various problems with "recent history" can easily be attributed to mere implementation problems, which are not exactly the same thing as Marxism. Ideas like "profit is inherently exploitative," "history is the history of class struggles" and "the proletariat will eventually rise up and crush their oppressors" are quite hard to empirically refute.

[ponderingturtle]

The economy took a beating during 2001-2003 from the comination of 9/11, the WOT, dot com bubble bust, etc. Revenue did decrease during that period but the economy was bouyed by the tax decrease, which helped prevent a massive recession.

This kind of statement is one that I just wonder how supportable is it? I mean economies turn up and down all the time on their own can you say that one specific action did anything?

I just wonder how well the US economy as a whole was doing, I have seen claims that the stock market and the US economy are now effectively decoupled as so much of it is international.

And if such deficit spending was needed to fix the economy why is the deficit such a big deal. It seems to be only a big deal to those who are not in power at the time.

[Lurker]

The economy took a beating during 2001-2003 from the comination of 9/11, the WOT, dot com bubble bust, etc. Revenue did decrease during that period but the economy was bouyed by the tax decrease, which helped prevent a massive recession.

Agreed, but your tax decrease/recession is just speculation.

And Clinton's tax increases increased revenue. I wonder why?

Lurker

[Billdave2]

Agreed, but your tax decrease/recession is just speculation.

And Clinton's tax increases increased revenue. I wonder why?

Lurker

Total dollars went up slightly but as a percent of GDP it was static until later after the mid-term elections/Newts revolution when some tax increases were rolled back and both total dollar and % GDP increased.

[Billdave2]

This kind of statement is one that I just wonder how supportable is it? I mean economies turn up and down all the time on their own can you say that one specific action did anything?

I just wonder how well the US economy as a whole was doing, I have seen claims that the stock market and the US economy are now effectively decoupled as so much of it is international.

And if such deficit spending was needed to fix the economy why is the deficit such a big deal. It seems to be only a big deal to those who are not in power at the time.

The economy is doing real well aside from the stock market. Unemployment is low, interest rates are fairly low and inflation is stable. You don't have all three of these with a weak economy.

Deficit spending isn't what "fixes" the economy in this case. It is the tax cut which puts more money in the marketplace which boosts things. The increased spending creates the deficit which is definatly not a right wing policy. The Bush's are far from being traditional conservative/right wing. Most people don't remember that Bush1 was added to the ticket to appease moderate/liberal republicans in 1980. Most true conservatives are horrified by the way this administration has gone along /promoted two fisted spending.

[MaGZ]

Keeping criminals locked up for a longer period of time. The mandatory ‘three strikes’ ruling.

[Walter Wayne]

The greatest achievement of right-wing politics is, without a doubt, keeping left-wing politics in check.

In case you think me biased, I'll also mention that the greatest achievement of left-wing politics is keeping right-wing politics in check.

I love checks and balances.

Walt

[Texas]

Hello.

I'd consider myself more liberal than conservative, given my favourable views towards marxism, which is arguably on the left of the board.

But I wish to broaden my horizons, I wish to know about the achievements of Right Wing politics that wussy liberals would be unwilling to admit to being right wing in origin.

I find it extremely depressing when people say 'It is bad to be right wing'. I don't agree with a lot of right wing stances, but this ideology is existing a lot these days. Why is it so frustrating for those of you who know what I am talking about, and why has it exploded onto the scene? It is really hard to compare "achievements" when it comes to American conservatives and liberals. It is more a philosophy of what government should do for or to the citizens. Republicans/conservatives tend to focus more on national security and military functions while democrats/liberals focus more on social welfare aspects of governance. Those philosophical differences used to be well balanced between the 2 parties. I have always considered myself a conservative. I believe in the free market, a strong defense and a robust foreign policy but abhor government interference in my daily life.

It appears to me that political philosophical debate has been hijacked by the fringes of both parties. With the rise of the religious right in the GOP and the lurch to the left going on in the Democratic party it appears that both parties have forgotten that it takes 2 wings for a bird to fly. In the past liberals and conservatives were rational enough to act as counter balance against each other's excesses. The political air is poisonous right now and I am not sure if either side can put aside the need for complete control long enough to regain our balance.

[Dr Adequate]

Making the toothbrush moustache permanently unfashionable.

[Walter Wayne]

Making the toothbrush moustache permanently unfashionable.
That was done by a man who was on an axis differing from left-right.

[Lurker]

Total dollars went up slightly but as a percent of GDP it was static until later after the mid-term elections/Newts revolution when some tax increases were rolled back and both total dollar and % GDP increased.


Dude, you will do anything to ensure Republicans get credit and deny it to Dems. LOL Let's look at the numbers as a % of GDP

1992: 17.5
CLINTON ASSUMES OFFICE
1993: 17.6
1994: 18.1
REPUBS gain control of Congress
1995: 18.5
1996: 18.9
1997: 19.3
1998: 20.0
1999: 20.9

We can see that revenues as a % of GDP is rose under Clinton from +0.1% change to +0.5% change then held steady through the GOP takeover at +0.4% til 1998.

Are you saying that the GOP had no real effect until 1998? It looks kind of like you are cherry picking your data in order to support your conclusion.

Lurker

[ponderingturtle]

The economy is doing real well aside from the stock market. Unemployment is low, interest rates are fairly low and inflation is stable. You don't have all three of these with a weak economy.

Deficit spending isn't what "fixes" the economy in this case. It is the tax cut which puts more money in the marketplace which boosts things. The increased spending creates the deficit which is definatly not a right wing policy. The Bush's are far from being traditional conservative/right wing. Most people don't remember that Bush1 was added to the ticket to appease moderate/liberal republicans in 1980. Most true conservatives are horrified by the way this administration has gone along /promoted two fisted spending.

BUt you are missing the entire point, how can you diffinitively say that? How is that more substancial than saying that bushes downgrading of interest in Osama Bin Laden when he entered office is what failed to prevent 9/11?

[Steven Howard]

Making the toothbrush moustache permanently unfashionable.

That was done by a man who was on an axis differing from left-right.

I approve of the "axis" pun, but I have to wonder about the parameters of a discussion where someone objects to calling Hitler "right-wing."

[Schneibster]

I approve of the "axis" pun, but I have to wonder about the parameters of a discussion where someone objects to calling Hitler "right-wing."The Nazis were socialists. They brought social programs that helped common Germans regain their living, and their pride, after the loss of WWI, the Versailles Treaty, and the Great Depression. Such social programs are not right-wing at all. On the other hand, the Nazis were also nationalists, and that is a very right-wing stance.

The argument can therefore be made (and convincingly, IMO) that the Nazis were centrists; right-wing in some respects, left-wing in others. The problem was not their left- or right-wingness; it was their authoritarianism. They came to power not by election but by appointment; they held power not by consent but by force; they engaged in illegal acts against demonized minorities; and they made war not for safety, but for profit.

[Darth Rotor]

The Nazis were socialists. They brought social programs that helped common Germans regain their living, and their pride, after the loss of WWI, the Versailles Treaty, and the Great Depression. Such social programs are not right-wing at all. On the other hand, the Nazis were also nationalists, and that is a very right-wing stance.

The argument can therefore be made (and convincingly, IMO) that the Nazis were centrists; right-wing in some respects, left-wing in others. The problem was not their left- or right-wingness; it was their authoritarianism. They came to power not by election but by appointment; they held power not by consent but by force; they engaged in illegal acts against demonized minorities; and they made war not for safety, but for profit.
One of the few pithily intelligent things ever posted about the National Socialists on the internet. You also illustrate the severe mental limitation one handicaps one's self with when using "right wing" and "left wing" to describe what are usually more complex political positions.

Good one, Schneibster, you are on a roll lately. :)

DR

[ponderingturtle]

The Nazis were socialists. They brought social programs that helped common Germans regain their living, and their pride, after the loss of WWI, the Versailles Treaty, and the Great Depression. Such social programs are not right-wing at all. On the other hand, the Nazis were also nationalists, and that is a very right-wing stance.

The argument can therefore be made (and convincingly, IMO) that the Nazis were centrists; right-wing in some respects, left-wing in others. The problem was not their left- or right-wingness; it was their authoritarianism. They came to power not by election but by appointment; they held power not by consent but by force; they engaged in illegal acts against demonized minorities; and they made war not for safety, but for profit.

I also thought their economic policy was more right wing than left wing in terms of roles for business. Citing nationalism as being their main right wing element seems like a very poor choice to me.

[SezMe]

Deficit spending isn't what "fixes" the economy in this case. It is the tax cut which puts more money in the marketplace which boosts things.

This certainly is not true of Bush's tax cut which generally benefitted the wealthy. The wealthy do not generally spend more as a result of a tax cut because their spending is not constrained by the availability of cash. However, a tax cut that benefits low income people will most likely be fully spent as such people try to meet unmet needs.

[Schneibster]

I also thought their economic policy was more right wing than left wing in terms of roles for business. Citing nationalism as being their main right wing element seems like a very poor choice to me.Hmmm. What precisely are you arguing here?

Nationalism is not right-wing? Hmmm, well, guess that one doesn't fly. It's even a frequently cited feature (http://www.google.com/search?q=right+wing+nationalism) of ultra-right-wing political platforms.

The Nazis were not nationalists? Errrmmm, well, that one doesn't work too well either.

I guess I'm not clear on why your proposed illustration of their right-wingedness is "better" than my "very poor" one (or perhaps not so poor, all things considered), not to mention what it is about my choice of example that is "very poor" considering it's apparently pretty accurate. Perhaps you could explain that for us all.

[ponderingturtle]

Hmmm. What precisely are you arguing here?

Nationalism is not right-wing? Hmmm, well, guess that one doesn't fly. It's even a frequently cited feature (http://www.google.com/search?q=right+wing+nationalism) of ultra-right-wing political platforms.

The Nazis were not nationalists? Errrmmm, well, that one doesn't work too well either.

I guess I'm not clear on why your proposed illustration of their right-wingedness is "better" than my "very poor" one (or perhaps not so poor, all things considered), not to mention what it is about my choice of example that is "very poor" considering it's apparently pretty accurate. Perhaps you could explain that for us all.

So the Soviet Union was very right wing as it was highly nationalistic, economic policy does not matter? I just don't see how nationalism is the only marker or the best for the right wing nature of the Nazi fascist state.

[Schneibster]

So the Soviet Union was very right wing as it was highly nationalistic, economic policy does not matter? You have merely illustrated that oversimplification leads to error; which is precisely what I said in the first place. You have not showed that nationalism is not a marker of right-wing tendencies, or that the Nazis didn't engage in it.

I just don't see how nationalism is the only marker or the best for the right wing nature of the Nazi fascist state.Who said it was? This is generally referred to as a "straw man." It is a marker, which is all that was needed for my argument.

[Tony]

Schneibster, wouldn't you say that nationalism was originally a left-wing ideal?

[Dr Adequate]

Keeping Michael Moore in cheeseburgers.

[Steven Howard]

The argument can therefore be made (and convincingly, IMO) that the Nazis were centrists; right-wing in some respects, left-wing in others.

Granted. I just think it's weird that the thread was happily chugging along with the idea that the Democratic Party (and Bill Clinton in particular) can be called "left-wing" with no qualifiers, and the Republican Pary (and George W. Bush in particular) can be called "right-wing" with no qualifiers, but when Dr. A makes a Hitler joke suddenly "left" vs. "right" is too simplistic. I'm not saying it's not a valid point, just that it was an unexpected time for someone to make it.

[MaGZ]

Hmmm. What precisely are you arguing here?

Nationalism is not right-wing? Hmmm, well, guess that one doesn't fly. It's even a frequently cited feature (http://www.google.com/search?q=right+wing+nationalism) of ultra-right-wing political platforms.

The Nazis were not nationalists? Errrmmm, well, that one doesn't work too well either.

I guess I'm not clear on why your proposed illustration of their right-wingedness is "better" than my "very poor" one (or perhaps not so poor, all things considered), not to mention what it is about my choice of example that is "very poor" considering it's apparently pretty accurate. Perhaps you could explain that for us all.

I don’t think you can argue that nationalism is exclusively right-wing. Stalin won the war against NS Germany by using nationalism and fighting for ‘Mother Russia’. International socialism–for the time–was sidelined.

[Schneibster]

Schneibster, wouldn't you say that nationalism was originally a left-wing ideal?That's actually almost certainly a very interesting question, or more to the point one with an interesting answer, and one I don't have an answer to off the top of my head.

I'd like to see you justify it, more than just in terms of the anarchist movements of 19th century Europe. It's probably an interesting discussion.

[Schneibster]

Granted. I just think it's weird that the thread was happily chugging along with the idea that the Democratic Party (and Bill Clinton in particular) can be called "left-wing" with no qualifiers, and the Republican Pary (and George W. Bush in particular) can be called "right-wing" with no qualifiers, but when Dr. A makes a Hitler joke suddenly "left" vs. "right" is too simplistic. I'm not saying it's not a valid point, just that it was an unexpected time for someone to make it.Granted in return. It's a button of mine; IMHO Hitler is too often presented as right wing. It's important (again, IMHO) to remember that he was neither right nor left; he was an authoritarian.

As for Clinton being "left wing," I think that's neither accurate in absolute terms, nor even true in relative terms. I don't think the US Democratic Party is particularly liberal, or particularly left, and most of all I think they're more authoritarian than I am entirely comfortable with. I similarly don't identify GWB as "right wing." Some of his positions are right; some are left. He certainly isn't a conservative; the deficit's out through the roof, and the Constitution's in the toilet. "That damn piece of paper" pretty well put paid to any assertion he's a conservative of any stripe.

So yeah, I'd say that the discussion was too simplistic; I merely chose my time to make the point.

[Texas]

Granted in return. Constitution's in the toilet. "That damn piece of paper" pretty well put paid to any assertion he's a conservative of any stripe.

So yeah, I'd say that the discussion was too simplistic; I merely chose my time to make the point. Urban Legend from CapitolHillBlue which is widely known for making things up:

http://911courage.org/article.php?story=2006081513382136

WRITER'S NOTE: When this story was written, three sources told me they personally heard President Bush call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper." I have since learned that two of the sources were not present for the meeting and were, in fact, passing on second-hand information. The third now refuses to either confirm or deny the report. That leaves us with a decision. Do we kill the story or add this explanation? I originally killed the story but decided later to restore it to the database because there is still enough information floating around that suggests the President of the United States did make the statement. His actions through warrantless wiretapping, abuse of "signing statements" and attacks on civil liberties suggest such a statement reflects how he feels about the document that is supposed to define our country. I leave it to the reader to decide. At this point, two of the story's sources say they are repeating what they heard happened. It may be true. It may not. But we feel is worth consideration as part of the national debate. I have edited the column to reflect what the sources now claim.)

[gnome]

I've been trying to source that "damn piece of paper" quote... anyone got it confirmed?

Edit: Looks like Texas has already started investigating.

[Texas]

I've been trying to source that "damn piece of paper" quote... anyone got it confirmed?

Edit: Looks like Texas has already started investigating.

Here is the retraction posted on the left-wing site "truthout"

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/071003K.shtml

Sorry that was another claim Thomson had to retract.

[Dr Adequate]

They've given a great boost to manufacturers of bumper stickers.

Republicans, in particular, appear to have produced a political ideology which will actually fit on one.

[jimtron]

Keeping criminals locked up for a longer period of time. The mandatory ‘three strikes’ ruling.

I guess the three strikes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law) law is an achievement, but maybe not such a good one.

[Schneibster]

Urban Legend from CapitolHillBlue which is widely known for making things up:While it appears that you are correct about this particular story, it also appears that Capitol Hill Blue had the integrity to admit it when the sources changed their stories. That doesn't sound like anything got made up, except perhaps by the sources (and perhaps not).

The article on Truthout that you put up a link that supposedly was a retraction of this article doesn't say a thing about it. Nor does it say anything about anybody making anything up, except a source.

If you're going to make claims like this, I think you need to present a bit more evidence that actually supports the claim.

[Beerina]

Ok, so how, in this day and age and after considering recent history, could anyone have a favorable view of Marxism?

Hope springs eternal.

People defend religion, psychics, Big Feet, et al. to this day, too.

At least the fraction of people hanging out in BBSs claiming, "If you knew what communism really was, you'd pray for it" has largely dried up, though you can still find some if you post an irritating enough statement, including around here.

The irony that, in their beloved communist countries, they'd be lucky if they even had a color TV in their tiny little apartment, is completely lost on them.

[Gurdur]

Hope springs eternal.
Yup. Just look at the libertarians and Objectivists, for example; every bit as woefully blind and deludedly hopeful as the communists.

[Texas]

While it appears that you are correct about this particular story, it also appears that Capitol Hill Blue had the integrity to admit it when the sources changed their stories. That doesn't sound like anything got made up, except perhaps by the sources (and perhaps not).

The article on Truthout that you put up a link that supposedly was a retraction of this article doesn't say a thing about it. Nor does it say anything about anybody making anything up, except a source.

If you're going to make claims like this, I think you need to present a bit more evidence that actually supports the claim.I edited that post to say it was about another case. I posted the actual refutation of the "its just paper" in the previous post. Doug Thompson is truly a dishonest person. Hell even on liberal websites such as Democratic Underground and Daily Kos he is a forbidden source. Here is an example thread from Daily Kos and their reaction to the story

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/14/225310/24

[Schneibster]

Huh, well, I know DU OK- but not well enough to know that. Daily Kos isn't someplace I've been much. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, then.

[Harpoon]

Interesting string. But I'd like to correct an earlier post.

A lot of this came about after the midterm elections that saw the Republicans gain control of the House. WJC brought in Dick Morris (conservative advisor to Reagan) and for a brief period of time there was actual cooperation and effort made by both sides to actually compromise. The budget reform was resited becuase of the tax increases, which were then rolled back by GWB, which revived the economy that was just starting to sag in 2000. Deficit increases have been because of increased spending, tax revenues went up despite (or more likely) because of the tax cuts. Even with the larger deficit and the war the economy is still really strong.

I'm not aware of Morris ever working for Reagan. He had focused on GOP campaigns. I know he worked for Pete Wilson in Kaleefornya and Trent Lott, but never Reagan. Correct me if I'm in error.