Here is an answer to the most-often asked question about this site: what is its political orientation, its bias?
Is the FM site home of a radical leftist reformer or right-wing iconoclast?
One virtue of the FM site is its clear position about the politics of 21st century America: I stand against them. Choosing a party today is like cattle at the stockyards choosing a pen. They (being smarter than us) don’t bother with party identification. They don’t cheer the “left-side” pen: the virtue of its prisoners, the beauty of the fence, the free food. Those in the “right-side” pen don’t wear logos or bumper-stickers, or trumpet their superior intelligence over those in the other pen.
However clear, this position confuses some people. Here is the answer, more clearly stated — the true politics of the FM site, plainly stated:
- It’s a left-wing site! and
- It’s a right-wing site!
(1) It’s a left-wing site!
“You are so in the tank for the current Democratic leadership that I hope you’re breathing Nitrox.” (source)
With friends writing articles like those on the FM site, President Obama needs no enemies. Another view:
{Y}ou are a left wing idealist. you hardly ever represent the right wing in any of your posts (source).
He must know very few leftist idealists. These assertions are obviously wrong. For example, some major themes on the FM website that lefties abhor:
- A critical view of Obama and many of his policies.
- A skeptical view of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
For evidence, look at the FM Reference Pages on the right-side menu bar; click on Obama, his administration and policies. You will see dozens of posts, including the following:
- Our metastable Empire, built on a foundation of clay, 3 March 2008 — We elect leaders with vast ambitions, but can no longer afford them.
- Is Obama running for the office of Chief Shaman?, 6 June 2008 — Weirdness from our next President.
- The evil of socialism approaches!, 22 October 2008 — Economic crisis and a leftist President. Can socialism be avoided, or is it our destined fate?
- America gets ready for new leadership (or is it back to the future?), 14 November 2008
- “Don’t Let Barack Obama Break Your Heart” by Tom Engelhardt, 21 November 2008
- Obama’s national security team: I hope you didn’t really believe in change?, 26 November 2008
- Obama proposes a new New Deal – like Japan, will we burn money to keep warm?, 8 December 2008
- Obama supporters mugged by reality (and learn not to believe in change!), 9 December 2008
- Lind explains why Obama’s foreign policy will fail, 14 January 2009
- About Obama’s coronation – wisdom from Fred, 23 January 2009
- Change you should not have believed in, 10 February 2009
As for the Democratic Party:
- The Democrats believe we are stupid. Are they correct?, 19 December 2008
Click on Science & Nature – my articles to see dozens of posts challenging the AGW orthodoxy.
For another perspective, the FM website favorably features articles from many prominent conservatives. Such as
- William Lind (Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism),
- Mark Steyn, John Derbyshire, Antonin Scalia, James Bowman, Eugene Volokh, Peggy Noonan, Allan Bloom,
- and even 3 posts speaking positively of Patrick Buchanan.
(2) It’s a right-wing site!
“It is painfully obvious this is simply a Republican party-line site.” (source)
“it’s increasingly obvious that this is just one long conservative whine about the modern world.” (source)
No wonder conservatives lost big in the 2008 elections! If the FM site represents their party line, their platform must call for ritual seppuku of the Grand Old Party’s machinery.
(a) Look at these articles about the 2008 Presidential Campaign. Wasn’t McCain the Republican candidate? The posts about Gov Palin (Alaska – R) were even more critical, but that’s a non-partisan view.
- How the Iraq and Vietnam wars are mirror images of each other, 7 February 2008 — Now we have McCain, the leading Republican Presidential candidate, talking of an open-ended commitment to victory in Iraq.
-
Our metastable Empire, built on a foundation of clay, 3 March 2008 — We can elect leaders with vast ambitions (foreign for McCain, domestic for Obama), but can no longer afford them.
-
Why McCain will lose the election, 1 July 2008
- McCain believes we are stupid. Is he correct?, 30 August 2008 — What does choosing Palin say about McCain? Esp note the intense discussion in the comments.
- Alaska is near Russia, and Gov Palin’s other foreign policy experience, 1 September 2008
- Governor Palin as an archetype for our time, 9 September 2008
- Before we reignite the cold war, what happened in Georgia?, 12 September 2008 — Notes from Palin’s first interview.
- Stratfor says that our war in Pakistan grows hotter; Palin seems OK with that, 12 September 2008 — More from the ABC interview.
- Campaign Update – news from the front, 25 September 2008 — Includes part 1 of Couric’s interview of Palin.
- Gov Palin speaks about foreign policy, 26 September 2008 — Part 2 of Couric’s interview.
- A comment about “turkey-gate”, 23 November 2008
(b) Articles about America – How can we reform it?. Section 4, about politics. I guess the GOP practice self-criticism as well as any Maoist sent for re-education (in the bad old days).
- R.I.P., G.O.P. – a well-deserved end, 7 November 2008
- What happens to the Republican Party after the election?, 2 November 2008
- President Bush gets in a few last blows on America before he leaves, 13 January 2009
(c) Articles about the Iraq & Afghanistan Wars. There are over 100 of them, every one hostile to these wars.
(d) Articles about the Bush Administration’s efforts to build support for a strike at Iran: 20 of them, and they brutally criticalize this Bush goal.
(e) Articles about the financial crisis, many dozens of them. If this is the Republican view, what must the Democrats be saying?
- Slowly a few voices are raised about the pending theft of taxpayer money, 20 September 2008
- The Paulson Plan will buy assets cheap, just as all good cons offer easy money to the marks, 30 September 2008
- A reminder – the TARP program is just theft, 24 November 2008
- Update: yes, the Paulson Plan was just theft, 14 February 2009
(f) Plus several dozen articles reposted on the FM site from TomDispatch, run by that good leftist — a brilliant and great writer — Tom Engelhardt (see here).
Interesting, Fabius. You feel rather alienated from both of the powerful parties. I can certainly identify with that.
From what I’ve read here, I would say you often sound like a paleoconservative. (You tend to view society and the economy as having departed too far from traditional ways, you’re opposed to the policy of neverending war that the neoconservatives favor, you’re worried about immigration.)
However, you’re also quite open-minded and focussed on realism, and that’s probably why a socialist like me hangs out here.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: The primary difference between the views expressed here and any form of conservatism is that the FM site is about adaptation to a radically different future. We are in a period of rapid change in which the past is a guide, not a state to which we can return.
Also, you might find this relevant: Diagnosing the eagle, chapter IV – Alienation, 13 January 2008.
From Wikipedia: Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for an anti-communist and anti-authoritarian right-wing movement in the US that stresses tradition, civil society and anti-federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity. Chilton Williamson, Jr. describes paleoconservatism as “the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture — an identity that is both collective and personal.” Paleoconservativism is not expressed as an ideology and its adherents do not necessarily subscribe to any one party line.
The FM site for me is about intrigue and critical thinking on issues of great importance into the future. Such a statement of purpose transcends political labels.
Congratulations FB
The proof of the relevence of your efforts is in the measure of reaching that million page view milestone. I have never dissapointed to find anything but provactive and stimulating ideas during my almost daily visits. Here’s to you doing what you are doing for as long as you want too.
Interesting, Fabius. You feel rather alienated from both of the powerful parties. I can certainly identify with that.
Yes, one could say that this is a place about integrity, not ideology, truly conservative in its dedication to rigor, or truly liberal in its openness to innovation. Or, one could simply state that one has yet to see a one-winged bird flying; all those I’ve seen have had two.
I tax FM as in full denial (rather than right) before Obama and the financial crisis surfaced. Today still 30% in denial of reality, while this 30% is the lowest you find. Robert McNamara got about this far in the “Fog of war”.
Cast your eyes more on China, India. Don’t let dictate your agenda by known manipulators.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Is this comment supposed to make sense? Full denial of what?
Oh, and of course muchos kudos on the 1 million pageviews. There’s so much hypocrisy about ‘bipartisanship’ from our crappy pundit class, that it’s nice to see someone actually trying to do it.
Right on! I definitely appreciate this site and the way FM goes right to the ugly but massively important issues coming up on the horizon, bypassing the usual BS that’s on comparable blogs.
My only comment: In my mind, Democrats are not the same as left-wing (which to me is socialist: redistribute for the greater good because everyone benefits that way, even the rich), Republicans not the same as right wing (which to me is conservative minimalist-government spend-only-on-defense-and-stay-out-of-the-way-otherwise, more or less libertarian).
.
.
Fabius Maxmius replies: Agreed, the political parties do not exactly correspond to ideological spectrum. But it seems close IMO. For example, see how energetically National Review supported President Bush Jr, despite his non-conservative policies (large deficits, foreign wars, big government, open borders). I suspect we’ll see the same with Obama. Left-liberal support for his Bush-like war policies is just the first in what might be a long list of apostasies they forgive.
> Left-liberal support for his Bush-like war policies is just the first in what might be a long list of apostasies they forgive.
I sure hope not …
I liked Levin’s taxonomy of the parties in his recent article on Sarah Palin (source): The economic elites and cultural populists tend to vote Republican, while the economic populists and cultural elites tend toward the Democrats.
Obviously, FM doesn’t fit in these simplistic (but largely accurate, and evidently historically “successful” in the sense that they win elections) categories.
It is simplistic to plot Fabius on a linear “left-right” progression. We need a “Y” as well as an “X” axis to characterize him. And certainly imaginary numbers are called for.
Accordingly, Fabius is a radical iconoclastic reformer off on a tangent.
Thanks for putting your finger on the problem at this site. The content is a lot like this imagined dialogue.
FM: “Look, folks, it’s dark in this cave.” Readers: “Well, did you bring a flashlight to help us find the way out?” FM: “Yes, there are two. But none of them have brains… er, I mean batteries.” Readers: “Well, then, what do we do?” FM: “I suggest, we all got together and complain to the flashlights that they should actually light up. Meanwhile I’ll help by just being inscrutable… and cool.” The End.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Perhaps you should spend less time in imaginary dialogs and more time reading this site before writing such stuff.
At the end of the post is a section “For more info on the FM site”, the first link of which is America – how can we reform it? On that page is section #6: Some solutions, ways to reform America. There you will see these:
1. Diagnosing the Eagle, Chapter III – reclaiming the Constitution, 3 January 2008
2. Obama might be the shaman that America needs, 17 July 2008
3. Obama describes the first step to America’s renewal, 8 August 2008
4. Let’s look at America in the mirror, the first step to reform, 14 August 2008
5. Fixing America: shall we choose elections, revolt, or passivity?, 16 August 2008
6. Fixing American: taking responsibility is the first step, 17 August 2008
7. Fixing America: the choices are elections, revolt, or passivity, 18 August 2008
8. What happens next? Advice for the new President, part one., 17 October 2008
9. What to do? Advice for the new President, part two., 18 October 2008
Party affiliations and declarations of leanings are temporarily dead. Frankly, who can tell the difference these days anyways? Most people view their politics like religion, they pick and choose what they want to find credible and valuable.
Congratulations on a well travelled blog. I’ve been stopping by regularly and always enjoy the content.
No, Tom. Ideology isn’t dead. I’ll grant you that it’s confused, but then that confusion has happened before.
It is a popular conceit in much of the US media that ideology has become obsolete, in favor of ‘realism’. The people who believe this doubless gain some sort of emotional benefit from the belief. However it seems to me that they are fooling themselves.
Ideology is simply a person’s views on how society functions, and ought to function, and it extends into our view of science, the emotional world, the past and the future. As such it is no more possible for people to get rid of ideology than it is for them to get rid of their own point of view.
Congrats.
“it’s increasingly obvious that this is just one long conservative whine about the modern world.”
Definitely one of the funnier lines your posts have elicited, as if conservatism could be erased by the progressive march of history, or the insidious cancer of liberalism would be ended by a return to traditional values.
In any event, if you are making partisans of the parties on the left and right mad, you are either and honest thinker or a curmudgeon, either of which is preferable to having your beliefs circumscribed by prepackaged talking points and cartoon animals.
Devil’s advocate. Contrarian. Socratic gadfly. Joker? FM’s a bit of each, and won’t permit himself to be stuck with any conventional political label.
However, he does betray a sentimental attachment to the traditional values of patriotism, civic duty, intelligence. Hence his nom de plume — and its allusion to Roman virtue (and presumably, a hierachy of merit.)
He definitely resists a materialist explanation of events, calls it escapist, yet he seems to see that “capitalism” as a system has brought itself to its knees.
We agree on one great principle: doubt conventional wisdom.
This site appears to possess honesty and independence. In this age of near universal partisanship, such sites are rare. Whether or not the site owner possesses superior insight into any particular issue is irrelevant.
FM is tuned into many of the significant issues of our day, and reports on these issues honestly and courageously. We can ask no more.
FM, you seem pretty enamored of Krugman lately, which is okay, he’s interesting at least.
Right now, what’s happening, though, is Obama seems to be falling out of the nationalization camp. Obama’s plan looks a bit more ‘Japan in the 90’s’ — more incremental and less bold. I presume you’re still on the Krugman side that favors nationalization?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: (1) Every economist I know considers Krugman a top-tier economist who well-deserved the Nobel Prize. His years as an attack dog for the Democratic Party have IMO darkened his reputation, but the economic crisis has brought him back to doing what he does so well: explaining economic theory to the general public.
(2) The Obama Administration is continuing the Bush team’s Wall Street friendly policies, probably because they believe the consensus forecast of economists: the downturn will end in the 2nd half of this year, and slow growth resumes next year. I doubt it.
(3) The “stress test” for banks is not just a bad joke, it is IMO the first major policy error by the Obama team. It could have “discovered” the weakness of the banks and build political support for fast action. Instead the optimistic assumptions will disguise the major banks’ weak condition, until it is revealed by continued deterioration.
See page 4 of the FDIC description of the “test.”
Failure to deal NOW with the financials, clearing the desk of policy makers to prepare for the next crisis, risks their becoming overwhelmed by events. The danger is a collapse of their OODA loops and hence their ability to adapt to events. This is a common cause of battlefield defeat, and happened to the Hoover Administration in 1930.
For another analysis confirming my view see “Wait And See” by Simon Johnson (was Chief Economist of the IMF, now MIT professor), The Baseline Analysis, 25 February 2009.
My guess is that Team Obama is hoping to “keep their options open”, one of the classic modes of failure for decision-makers facing difficult choices. Time relentlessly closes options.
Great statement. I’ve posted this as my “quote of the day”:
I had always assumed you to be an anarcho-monarchist, like myself. Congratulations – well deserved – on your page views
This gave me a weird image: a deserted, hard-scrabble landscape in which thousands of crumbling, medieval castles stand. In each castle, a lonely tyrant argues bitterly with his single servant, while the tyrant’s parents grunt in garbage cans.
Gosh, Now I know why I always come back to this site…incisive political commentary. It is an unfortunate sign of our times that all sources of information have to be viewed and considered via a political lens to determine if you are a friend or foe or whether your ideas have merit. This site is wonderful for presenting ideas and letting each person to decide for themselves. Thanks FM for all of the effort, your rising popularity is well deserved.
Congratulations on the milestone. You have earned the interest and traffic with all the excellent information presented. I most enjoy your amazing logic and command of the English language. I love your responses to the comments which I sometimes read before the comment for your wit and sense of humor. I learn much here everyday. Keep up your good work.
Huge Congrats are due you, FM, for agreeing in some important ways with most political activists, yet also disagreeing in some other important ways. Plus neither descending into nor allowing many personal insults, yet allowing some ridicule of (possibly?) ridiculous ideas.
Your combination of insightful analysis and quotes/ references to others is excellent; your readers often make good supportive / contrary points (NO echo chamber!); your comment response is the best on the web (that I’ve found).
Now that Obama & Dems are in, you might spend more time on suggested policies that you think are definitely positive, even if sub-optimal, but also among the most politically possible.
One site improvement would be the ability to move to the next or previous full post (with comments), from inside a comment. This would allow me to enter this comment and then read the latest comments on the prior post, without a stop at your home.
Hhmm…FM, is there just “one” or is there like “two” of you? Just wonderin’.
Fabius Maximus, I expect two things in return for my subscription fee.
(1) Fact-based commentary on important current trends that is internally-consistent, thought-provoking, and rare (i.e. that I haven’t read eleswhere).
(2) Links to articles and posts by others that meet the same criteria.
That you’ve reached the million mark suggests that others view your work as I do. Congratulations.
I won’t be demanding a refund. Yet!
Yes, FM, thanks for the blog and congratulations.
Re: “I most enjoy your amazing logic and command of the English language.”
I am more delighted than amazed. FM is clearly a pro where writing is concerned. But on reading that comment the thought arose:
FM’s style reminds me of military drill. I remember when we did officer-only drills there was a heightened sense of relaxation, precision, solidarity and esprit de corps, the combination of which expressed the essence of military force, which is penetrating, clarifying, effective and beyond thought. Action. Result.
The wide range of topics and views listed in exhaustive detail above, as is his wont, further exemplifies something else I very much appreciate even as I also find it frustrating. There is no destination in drill; it is a process, albeit one of fundamental value in the military context with real-world after-effects in action, on and off the field. Similarly I find myself never able to ‘grock’ where FM is coming from or pointing to, albeit the process is often one that is crisp, clear and confident etc.
This is a mark of inscrutability in the traditional Asian esoteric sense. Mark of a true warrior, as is said.
Keep up the good work!
Well when you guys finally figure out what the word/label for the views expressed on FM are, make some note of it so I can say I’m one of them. I stumbled into this website quite by accident when someone with whom I regularly argue posted links to here I agreed quite vehemently with. Since, I have not yet seen anything here I didn’t identify with.
I call myself Libertarian, for lack of a better word, but much of Libertarianism is bunk as well. (resistance to eminent domain when used properly, for instance)
I need a word. Maybe this: South Park Republican. Let me know if you figure it out. Paleoconservative is definitely not right.
It’s funny, but just by trying to be as objective as possible — by trying to portray reality in all its complexity as FM so assiduously strives to do–partisans on both sides will tend to project their own beliefs/fears onto the result, as so many clearly do. In the echo chamber/shouting match that the internet has become, we need more voices like this one.
Keep up the great work, FM.
Congrats FM you are simply one of the best info-blogs on the net. And I applaud you for joining those of us who find solace in no political party, but instead look to history, data (and that pesky thing called our constitution).
To me, FM is the prototypical definition of a post-partisan. On any issue, he gathers the best ideas from all sides and challenges the reader to overcome ideological consideration, namely to reach his own conclusions rather than simply toeing the party line.
FM is Google News with a brain, a post-partisan concept that deserves more attention in American politics. Respect yo!
Not a partisan site. Certainly not a Republican site, because at this point that involves wholesale reality denial. Simply wrong on global warming, and disingenuous when drawing parallels between the corporate support available for the two sides. A glaring error that does much to undermine your generally noble and thoughtful efforts against disinformation.
But that doesn’t matter too much, because there’s no way the relevant actors will act in concert until global warming becomes a truly enormous problem – which it will, in the absence of currently unpredictable mitigating phenomena.
(1) “Simply wrong on global warming, and disingenuous when drawing parallels between the corporate support available for the two sides.”
Can you provide any support for those bold statements? For example — this post gives data from some very expensive NOAA and NASA satellites, with analysis from two prestigious scientists who have run the program for 23 years. What’s the basis for your objection?
These posts are almost entirely excerpts from authoritative sources. Most of the rebuttals to these posts have been of the “boldly making stuff up” and “boldly repeating things heard somewhere” form. Combined with slander of the scientists (Rule #8: to warmistas, scientists are not be unquestioned — unless they disagree with AGW, then they’re kooks).
Let’s see if you can do better!
(2) “disingenuous when drawing parallels between the corporate support available for the two sides.”
(a) Please give an example of me “drawing parallels between…”
(b) That’s a generic slander, little more than mental blinkers. Try again. The scientists involved in this post rely almost exclusively on government and university funding.
(3) “until global warming becomes a truly enormous problem – which it will, in the absence of currently unpredictable mitigating phenomena.”
I can bring a horse to water, but cannot make him think.
My reply assumed this was to today’s post about climate science (note to self: read comment headers before replying). Please see these posts about climate science, and share your rebuttal.
What’s up, I read your new stuff on a regular basis. Your story-telling style is witty, keep it up!
“some major themes on the FM website that lefties abhor: A critical view of Obama and many of his policies…”
Wrong: E.g., http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/15/the-progressive-movement-is-a-pr-front-for-rich-democrats/ and http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1849351104/counterpunchmaga
Democrats and democrats are increasingly disillusioned. I voted for O v RMoney because the latter was even worse. Better neoliberal corporatism than outright fascism.
I do not understand your rebuttal. You cite an article written now — in Obama’s second term — to refute an observation about attitudes written FIVE years ago, after his first inaugural.
That makes sense to you, or did you not notice any of the dates?
Yes, after five years of Obama some Democrats, some on the Left, have changed their views. A pity it took them so long to see the obvious.
“I voted for O v RMoney because the latter was even worse. Better neoliberal corporatism than outright fascism.”
I agree. The difference between bad and worse is much sharper than between good and better.
But meaningful reform will require sharper vision and more political involvement than Americans display today. My guess — emphasis on guess — is that we are waiting for strong leadership. We can only guess at what form it will take, but I suspect we will follow. Eagerly. Blindly.
Loki’s speech in Germany (in The Avengers film) is the best statement of our situation.
American Imperialist – hence the moniker – a not so subtle hint at the dictatorship that will dispense with the left wing right wing paradigm and defend the empire against the invading horde.
So much debate over such little differences between right and left. We all want MORE, we just disagree at about 5% of the budget about how to best get it. You say we need to awaken from the cold slumber of anomie. I have a three suggestions, (1) random selection of legislators or at least transfer of veto power over all three branches to a body of about 1500 (statisticians number) randomly selected voters), (2) no government secrets, NONE, not even military, we should be proud of what we think, say (e.g. “embarrassing” diplomatic correspondence), and do, rather than ashamed of it and need to hide it in secrecy and “need to know”. We are the people, let us rule (random selection) and know (no secrets). The third suggestion is to make food and shelter a “right” rather than, say, medical care. Let us give life, then let the mind and its morals rate it’s worth, but provide the shameless option to “live off the fat of the land”. Three “power to the people” recommendations to further the great spirit of American democratic ideals.
Random selection of lawmakers
No secrets
Food and shelter a right of all without shame.
When we make life a canned experience, we destroy the adventure that makes life worthwhile. Life is to be lived and it will always not be fair. We are at the top of the food chain; but, within our society only a few can really be the top. The real problem with people and life is not poverty of having, but poverty of spirit. If you furnish the population with their needs, only those that believe in themselves will thrive and have a lasting good life. But, we need to make our society prosperous and encourage all our people to believe in themselves to give them a change to enjoy the adventure that is life.
John,
That’s an interesting speech. I suggest going to your city’s local homeless shelters and food banks to give it.
Even better, go to places with hard core poverty — such as rural Mississippi or deep Appalachia. But why limit yourself to America! There are places around the world with people starving. Perhaps they would love to hear about poverty of the spirit.
Please report back on your reception.
Editor;
I see you didn’t think much of my post. We all think in paradigms based on our environment and our experience. Certainly I feel for those that suffer because of their circumstance. We have had a number of people that have lost their homes and are forced into public shelters in this last depression. As the job market improves most of these will get their lives back. There are some that are mentally impaired and some have addictions and these will not recover. Certainly, we should help these people. But, you should look at the big picture, and see how our welfare system is not solving the problems with drugs, crime and violence. You should be very careful how you change it in the future. You mention the poverty of rural Mississippi and Appalachia. These people may be poor, but I would say they are better off than some of our inner cities where drugs and crime are so prevalent.
The whole of life is a tragedy. I see many people with various problems from disease, addictions, various fears and phobias, inability to get along with other people and afflictions of old age. We have windows of time when we are at our best and times of hardship. No amount of money can fix the problem that you are going to die some day. Think deeply about the big picture and be sure that you are not making things worse.
John,
I grew up on welfare, and was a social worker. I know poverty, a little. Not as much as others.
To say “The real problem with people and life is not poverty of having, but poverty of spirit” is one of the most brutally insensitive things I’ve read on this website. And that it quite a high bar, considering the competition.
You appear to love your pretty words, and your imagination. Try spending some time with the poor and report back to us. Or experience it yourself. Hunger, fear, watching your loved ones suffer. Until then please spare us more of this drivel.
Editor,
Sorry you feel so strongly about my words. The things you say are truly tragic; but they are life. But remember this quote ” Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.”
personally, I don’t care much about the politics. I came looking for a truthful and sincere source of information as this description indicates. “A website about geopolitics from an American’s perspective, discussing ways to reignite the spirit of a nation grown cold.”
The site has limited search capability; the tag cloud does not include any entry for Gary Johnson; and it does not contain any entry for libertarian.
It appears to me that your article about “Right Wing …Left Wing” left out a very important aspect of the American Way: the ability to compromise and come to a mutually beneficial solution for “most” of the United States of America.
This presidential election cycle is probably THE most likely point in our modern history to break the two-party choke-hold on our country. Perhaps I missed your authors’ analyses of this historical opportunity; perhaps I simply am not familiar enough with this site to find what I’m interested in; OR perhaps I simply overlooked your in-depth analysis and multitude of links to libertarian principles for the education of those interested in a viable alternative. Perhaps not.
I like what I see here and am thoroughly interested in your notions of a Libertarian Party win this NOV. Until that time. Until that time.
Earl,
I find your comment quite odd. This is one of the most carefully and exhaustively cross-indexed websites I have ever seen — and I’ve examined thousands. Let’s see how you easily could have found the information you seek, if you had made even a slight effort.
(1) To find articles by subject matter, see the links on the right-side menu bar (near the top) under “The Reference Library”. You’ll see a section about “America”, including “Campaign 2016” with a menu page listing titles & links to 63 posts (and, for a broader perspective, “Reforming America: steps to new politics“).
(2) Near the bottom of the right menu is the tag cloud. Click on the link to “Campaign 2016” to see the same 63 articles appearing in chronological order.
(3) Or you could use the drop-down “Category” menu (also near the top of the right menu). You’ll see “politics” – which brings you to all 332 articles about politics, in chronological order (including those about Campaign 2016, listed first).
(4) You say “The site has limited search capability”. Odd, since typing “libertarian” in the “Search” box (near the very top of the right menu) brings up every article with that word in it.
(5) Why does “libertarian” not appear in the tag cloud? First, I do tags by the name of the ideology (i.e., “conservationism”, not “conservatives”). Second, the FM website has 3,704 posts. There are thousands of tags. The Cloud shows only the most frequently used ones.
Tip #1 — Click on any tag. Change the last work of the URL (on browser) from that tag to “libertarian”; then hit send. This result shows all posts about libertarianism.
Tip #2 — Find the most recent article about Libertarianism (not just one mentioning it). See the “For More Information” section at the end. There you will usually find links to other major articles about the subject. For you that means going to Why Libertarians will win (& liberals should fear Rand Paul).
Earl,
Brief notes in reply to the other aspect of your comment.
(1) “It appears to me that your article about “Right Wing …Left Wing” left out a very important aspect of the American Way…”
It is just a thousand word note making an observation, not a thousand page scholarly book about US society. It omits hundreds of very important aspects of the American way.
(2) “interested in your notions of a Libertarian Party win this NOV.”
The odds are almost zero. Third parties allow protest votes (oddly, often serving to elect candidates the protesters dislike most). They also introduce “new” ideas into the political debate. It is structurally almost impossible for them to win unless one of the major parties disintegrates (the Republicans rose after the Whigs disintegrated from the debate about slavery).
If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on a recent post about campaign 2016.
* * *
I apologize for the double sign-off…
I now realize editing one’s own comment is NOT possible here. . .
(sigh)
Earl,
It’s a free website — to you the reader, and to the authors. Don’t expect anything fancy.
There’s nothing “left wing” about criticizing Obama, because Obama was never on the left. AT ALL.
PS: Oops, I meant “nothing ANTI-left about criticizing Obama”. Fingers moved faster than my brain. ;-)
There are no lefties who abhor criticism of Obama. Real lefties (e.g. counterpunch.org, wsws.org, and many others) criticize Obama savagely and endlessly — or at least did do so, during his terms. Obama and the Democratic Party are right-wing formations: pro-capitalism, pro-imperialism, pro-war, pro-fascism, anti-economic-justice, etc., etc. They have no left-wing views AT ALL. (No, identity politics does not count as “left”. Identity politics has never been embraced by the left.)
alan,
The frequency in which people today trot out the “not a real left/right” shows both a lack of understanding about the meaning of the terms – but also a deeper insight.
The terms left-right are a one dimensional representation of the political spectrum as it is at one point in time. Originating in the seating of the French Assembly in 1789. We still use it centuries later because it is simple and clear. The terms have no intrinsic meaning because what is “left” and “right” change over time – and varies between societies.
We see this confusion more frequently lately because, I believe, we are in a transitional period when the political teams rearrange themselves. This is clearly shown in surveys, in which very few people have stereotypical left-right views. Most have a combination. This is more clearly shown in 2 or 3 dimensional graphs. Eventually this will sort out into something simpler.