Today we really don't have a 'far right' in the USA, by any reasonable definition of it. The MSM will argue that of course, but they are hardly unbiased observers and have not been for at least a generation.
Unless you call Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump far right, that is. I view both of them as practical moderates -- as John F. Kennedy …
Today we really don't have a 'far right' in the USA, by any reasonable definition of it. The MSM will argue that of course, but they are hardly unbiased observers and have not been for at least a generation.
Unless you call Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump far right, that is. I view both of them as practical moderates -- as John F. Kennedy was a practical moderate.
I always will remember watching 'Meet The Press' back when Tim Russert would have Bob Dole and Patrick Moynihan on as guests. Dole was about as conservative as anyone in the Senate, and Moynihan was similarly liberal. Back then, you could disagree on some things and still have a civil discussion, and Dole & Moynihan agreed on the ~95% of things that made them Americans. The other 5% they debated, not hoping to change each others' minds as much as to convince the audience. But they always debated respectfully, as the true friends that they were.
Today's conservatives are no more far right than Dole was, but the liberals in power today aren't far from being communists. The country has swung far, far to the left and it is only viewed under that lens that anyone can view someone like Trump or Mike Johnson as far right. There was a time that faith in God was considered a cornerstone of patriotism, not a liability. We need to get back to that time. It will happen; these things all run in cycles, and my sense of it is that the world is on the verge of a new awakening, believing in something more than just ourselves. In God's time, not ours.
I agree that the far Right isn’t the problem. I was pointing out the extremes and that the wisdom of the Founding Fathers was in safeguarding us from both. The trend since the early 1900s has been moving the needle slowly to the far Left.
OK, Feather -- what did you mean then when you said "Our times now are witnessing the extremes of both ends of the spectrum."
All societies have a spread of political philosophy, and at any point in time there will be people at either end of that spread. I think you and I agree that the current spread is tilted far to the left. Given that, if the Gen Z wants to move to what they perceive as the center of that existing spread, we are in for a farther-left future than the USA has ever had, and that will not be a good thing.
I see that the pendulum, which has moved far to the left, is actually turning and heading back toward the middle, as these things almost always do. The further off-center the pendulum is moved, the harder and faster it will return. There can and likely will be a tumultuous time ahead, as the pendulum swings back to a more balanced state. Rapid changes cause significant disruption and dislocation, the faster they happen the more severe the effects.
And I too always enjoy our conversations, Feather! 💖
Although it was carried out by the radical left, the example of anarchy was witnessed in all the chaos, destruction and violence of 2020. A lawless time, defunding the police, etc.
To me, that was anarchy which is the opposite of tyranny.
"Anarchy is a situation where a government does not exist in a state, or the existing government has no authority over the people, while tyranny refers to a state under a cruel and oppressive government."
The 'Summer of Love' happened at a time where there was a government in place, but it chose not to act to stop the 'mostly peaceful' rioters. This does not strictly meet the definition of either anarchy or tyranny; but I think it could be seen as a case of 'constructive anarchy' when a government refuses to enforce the law.
President Trump said that Portland and Seattle were 'in a state of anarchy' when he sent in federal agents to put an end to the Portland and Seattle rioting. So although what happened in 2020 does not meet the literal definition of anarchy, for all intents and purposes respecting those riots, there was no government in place. So, a special case of anarchy.
Note that anarchy is by definition neither right nor left; if there is no government then it cannot be either. Tyranny can be either, as well. It all depends what the tyrant tells people to do. Constructive anarchy, where the government selectively enforces the law (you can bet if the KKK or John Birch Society started riots in Portland or Seattle, they would have done something) can be left- or right-wing if the selective enforcement is designed to further a particular political agenda, which clearly was the case in 2020.
However, I would say that today in the USA, we are much closer to tyranny than anarchy. Government abuse of power to attack an opposing politician, political party or movement is a hallmark of tyranny. And that is what is happening today -- the far-left government is attacking its political opponents -- Trump and his MAGA/A1 supporters -- with a goal of maintaining perpetual power.
A common response, when people read the Constitution, is "If the Constitution says this, then how can they get away with all these things that they're not supposed to be doing?"
Answer: Because most folks have never read the Constitution, and have no idea what it says -- that is how they get away with it.
And don't feel bad about being uncertain about anarchy and tyranny. I had a feeling for it, but looked it up to see exactly what the answer was, when you asked. I don't like to offer off-the-cuff answers to serious questions, except in a field where I am knowledgeable and certain of the answer.
Bill, I am rethinking the Left / Right political spectrum and I do still see that too far to the Right, all the way, is no government, anarchy. Too far, all the way, to the Left is tyranny, where the government controls everything about our lives.
The brilliance of our Founding Fathers is they were knowledgeable on both extremes and worked diligently on a Constitution that would safeguard a nation from those extremes.
Left Liberals favor more and more government control. Conservatives favor limited government control.
The confusion happens because the global cabal will use anarchy to push for total government control. The Constitution, it could be argued, did a better job of protecting the nation from “no government”…doesn’t mean the cabal wouldn’t use anarchy as a tool to push us all the way to tyranny.
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters” Benjamin Franklin (pg 41 ;)
Hi Feather, the problem is that the whole left/right thing (a) is an oversimplification; and (b) means different things to different people. The best simple summary I found was in the following wikipedia article (yeah, I know 'wikipedia sux') but it was that the left favors redistributive policies and social justice, with the right favoring capitalism and property rights. ("The government cannot give anything to someone that they have not first stolen from someone else." Left believes end justifies means; right believes theft is immoral regardless of the cause.)
If you look at government in the USA, there are extensive policies implementing social justice and redistribution, while at the same time capitalism and property rights are defended. The difference is which of those ideas take priority when push comes to shove.
(However if the issue were really so simple, this wiki article would not be so long...)
If the Cabal can manage to destroy a government, it becomes easier for them to install their own, which would no doubt be tyrannical. Tyranny though can be right or left wing, since a tyrannical government could implement redistribution as its only priority (communism, socialism) or capitalism and property rights, and to hell with the poor (fascism, in one of its variants).
Today we really don't have a 'far right' in the USA, by any reasonable definition of it. The MSM will argue that of course, but they are hardly unbiased observers and have not been for at least a generation.
Unless you call Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump far right, that is. I view both of them as practical moderates -- as John F. Kennedy was a practical moderate.
I always will remember watching 'Meet The Press' back when Tim Russert would have Bob Dole and Patrick Moynihan on as guests. Dole was about as conservative as anyone in the Senate, and Moynihan was similarly liberal. Back then, you could disagree on some things and still have a civil discussion, and Dole & Moynihan agreed on the ~95% of things that made them Americans. The other 5% they debated, not hoping to change each others' minds as much as to convince the audience. But they always debated respectfully, as the true friends that they were.
Today's conservatives are no more far right than Dole was, but the liberals in power today aren't far from being communists. The country has swung far, far to the left and it is only viewed under that lens that anyone can view someone like Trump or Mike Johnson as far right. There was a time that faith in God was considered a cornerstone of patriotism, not a liability. We need to get back to that time. It will happen; these things all run in cycles, and my sense of it is that the world is on the verge of a new awakening, believing in something more than just ourselves. In God's time, not ours.
I agree that the far Right isn’t the problem. I was pointing out the extremes and that the wisdom of the Founding Fathers was in safeguarding us from both. The trend since the early 1900s has been moving the needle slowly to the far Left.
Enjoyed your comment, WildBill.
OK, Feather -- what did you mean then when you said "Our times now are witnessing the extremes of both ends of the spectrum."
All societies have a spread of political philosophy, and at any point in time there will be people at either end of that spread. I think you and I agree that the current spread is tilted far to the left. Given that, if the Gen Z wants to move to what they perceive as the center of that existing spread, we are in for a farther-left future than the USA has ever had, and that will not be a good thing.
I see that the pendulum, which has moved far to the left, is actually turning and heading back toward the middle, as these things almost always do. The further off-center the pendulum is moved, the harder and faster it will return. There can and likely will be a tumultuous time ahead, as the pendulum swings back to a more balanced state. Rapid changes cause significant disruption and dislocation, the faster they happen the more severe the effects.
And I too always enjoy our conversations, Feather! 💖
Although it was carried out by the radical left, the example of anarchy was witnessed in all the chaos, destruction and violence of 2020. A lawless time, defunding the police, etc.
To me, that was anarchy which is the opposite of tyranny.
Am I understanding that correctly? ❤️
"Anarchy is a situation where a government does not exist in a state, or the existing government has no authority over the people, while tyranny refers to a state under a cruel and oppressive government."
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-anarchy-and-tyranny/
The 'Summer of Love' happened at a time where there was a government in place, but it chose not to act to stop the 'mostly peaceful' rioters. This does not strictly meet the definition of either anarchy or tyranny; but I think it could be seen as a case of 'constructive anarchy' when a government refuses to enforce the law.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/refuse-to-enforce-law/
President Trump said that Portland and Seattle were 'in a state of anarchy' when he sent in federal agents to put an end to the Portland and Seattle rioting. So although what happened in 2020 does not meet the literal definition of anarchy, for all intents and purposes respecting those riots, there was no government in place. So, a special case of anarchy.
Note that anarchy is by definition neither right nor left; if there is no government then it cannot be either. Tyranny can be either, as well. It all depends what the tyrant tells people to do. Constructive anarchy, where the government selectively enforces the law (you can bet if the KKK or John Birch Society started riots in Portland or Seattle, they would have done something) can be left- or right-wing if the selective enforcement is designed to further a particular political agenda, which clearly was the case in 2020.
However, I would say that today in the USA, we are much closer to tyranny than anarchy. Government abuse of power to attack an opposing politician, political party or movement is a hallmark of tyranny. And that is what is happening today -- the far-left government is attacking its political opponents -- Trump and his MAGA/A1 supporters -- with a goal of maintaining perpetual power.
Great answer. I think my confusion was in assuming the spectrum of right/left as a definition of anarchy vs tyranny.
“Note that anarchy is by definition neither right nor left”
I was thinking of the spectrum between no rules and rules without representation by the people. The former, anarchy and the latter, tyranny.
Thank God for The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independence ❤️🇺🇸
Now if we can only get people to read them.
A common response, when people read the Constitution, is "If the Constitution says this, then how can they get away with all these things that they're not supposed to be doing?"
Answer: Because most folks have never read the Constitution, and have no idea what it says -- that is how they get away with it.
And don't feel bad about being uncertain about anarchy and tyranny. I had a feeling for it, but looked it up to see exactly what the answer was, when you asked. I don't like to offer off-the-cuff answers to serious questions, except in a field where I am knowledgeable and certain of the answer.
“ I don't like to offer off-the-cuff answers to serious questions, except in a field where I am knowledgeable and certain of the answer.”
I definitely know that about you, WildBill!
I appreciate any correction you notice I need!! We are all educating ourselves these days.
I think learning the Constitution etc in the context of the enlightened men who gave it to us adds a dimension of profound gratitude.
Which is why I am reading Skousen’s The Five Thousand Year Leap. Thanks again, Bill ❤️🙏🕊🦅🌎
Bill, I am rethinking the Left / Right political spectrum and I do still see that too far to the Right, all the way, is no government, anarchy. Too far, all the way, to the Left is tyranny, where the government controls everything about our lives.
The brilliance of our Founding Fathers is they were knowledgeable on both extremes and worked diligently on a Constitution that would safeguard a nation from those extremes.
Left Liberals favor more and more government control. Conservatives favor limited government control.
The confusion happens because the global cabal will use anarchy to push for total government control. The Constitution, it could be argued, did a better job of protecting the nation from “no government”…doesn’t mean the cabal wouldn’t use anarchy as a tool to push us all the way to tyranny.
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters” Benjamin Franklin (pg 41 ;)
Hi Feather, the problem is that the whole left/right thing (a) is an oversimplification; and (b) means different things to different people. The best simple summary I found was in the following wikipedia article (yeah, I know 'wikipedia sux') but it was that the left favors redistributive policies and social justice, with the right favoring capitalism and property rights. ("The government cannot give anything to someone that they have not first stolen from someone else." Left believes end justifies means; right believes theft is immoral regardless of the cause.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum
If you look at government in the USA, there are extensive policies implementing social justice and redistribution, while at the same time capitalism and property rights are defended. The difference is which of those ideas take priority when push comes to shove.
(However if the issue were really so simple, this wiki article would not be so long...)
If the Cabal can manage to destroy a government, it becomes easier for them to install their own, which would no doubt be tyrannical. Tyranny though can be right or left wing, since a tyrannical government could implement redistribution as its only priority (communism, socialism) or capitalism and property rights, and to hell with the poor (fascism, in one of its variants).
I like it ❤️🙏🕊