Mitt Romney visits the UK, Foot-in-mouth foreign diplomacy Options

[Kev]

Obama is a lot closer to the center than today's Republicans who have gone so far to the right they just passed Mussolini. The fact they've hounded out all the moderates in their party doesn't help.

Mussolini was a socialist, so yes, the Republicans are mercifully to his right. I'd hesitate to label Obama as being to his left, but there's not much in it, indeed they both favour crony corporatism. He certainly isn't a centrist.

The vast majority of historians would disagree with you.

[stevo]

... assuming that the rest of the planet should use words exactly as they do.

Well indeed. And of course the US never, ever subscribes to that view. It's the Guardian readers to blame again.

Mussolini was a socialist, so yes, the Republicans are mercifully to his right. I'd hesitate to label Obama as being to his left, but there's not much in it, indeed they both favour crony corporatism. He certainly isn't a centrist.

The vast majority of historians would disagree with you.

Kev, we've been down this bizarre road before. To summarise: no totalitarian dictator was ever of the right. Only the left populate the world with evil despots. Capitalism is the only possible solution, and the have-nots can either die off or throw themselves on the charitable mercies of the the haves. There. That saved a long and repetitive exchange of posts.

[sanitynotincluded]

Obama is a lot closer to the center than today's Republicans who have gone so far to the right they just passed Mussolini. The fact they've hounded out all the moderates in their party doesn't help.

Mussolini was a socialist, so yes, the Republicans are mercifully to his right. I'd hesitate to label Obama as being to his left, but there's not much in it, indeed they both favour crony corporatism. He certainly isn't a centrist.

The vast majority of historians would disagree with you.

Mussolini and Lenin would agree with me.

[sanitynotincluded]

... assuming that the rest of the planet should use words exactly as they do.

Well indeed. And of course the US never, ever subscribes to that view. It's the Guardian readers to blame again.

The question is not who has or has not ever subscribed to that view, but who is doing so in this case, and the answer to that is the grauniad and those of their readers getting their knickers in a twist. You are attempting deflection, but I shall not bite.

Mussolini was a socialist, so yes, the Republicans are mercifully to his right. I'd hesitate to label Obama as being to his left, but there's not much in it, indeed they both favour crony corporatism. He certainly isn't a centrist.

The vast majority of historians would disagree with you.

Kev, we've been down this bizarre road before. To summarise: no totalitarian dictator was ever of the right. Only the left populate the world with evil despots. Capitalism is the only possible solution, and the have-nots can either die off or throw themselves on the charitable mercies of the the haves. There. That saved a long and repetitive exchange of posts.

You are attempting, whether through ignorance or deceit I do not judge, to conflate different ideas. It is quite possible for an evil despot to be right wing. Not all evil despots are totalitarian though, and totalitarianism is an inherently left wing concept. (And before you try that straw man, the fact that all totalitarians are left wing is not a claim that all left wingers are totalitarians.) Totalitarianism is utterly incompatible with the disdain for central government control which is central to right wing ideology.

The fact that Hitler and Mussolini were socialists is demonstrated by their policies. That generations of leftists have succeeded in indoctrinating the easily impressionable that just because they were authoritarian in their leftism they were really "far right" (despite the inherent contradiction) is tragic, if only for the level of gullibility it reveals. The description of the Nazis and Fascists as right wing was a trick of Stalin's propagandists who wanted to criticise their fellow leftists who they saw as a threat, and should be viewed through that prism.

Capitalism is not the only possible solution, it is merely the solution which has achieved vastly more than any of the alternatives in raising all sectors of society.

[Roger Mellie]

. It is quite possible for a despot to be right wing.

If I recall rightly, Ghengis Khan was quite right-wing? I ask that as a genuine question. As I understand it, Pinochet had right-wing economic policies, he was very free-market.

This post has been edited by Roger Mellie: Jul 30 2012, 17:24

[sanitynotincluded]

. It is quite possible for a despot to be right wing.

If I recall rightly, Ghengis Khan was quite right-wing? I ask that as a genuine question. As I understand it, Pinochet had right-wing economic policies, he was very free-market.

Regarding the Mongols, it's all fairly relative. Khan certainly wasn't a classical liberal, but his control was somewhat limited by the size of his holdings and the limited technology available. The Mongols were great horsemen, but a chap on a horse is still very limiting as a means of dishing out orders.

As for Pinochet, he was perhaps the most right wing dictator in history. He wasn't even in the vicinity of totalitarianism though, nor particularly despotic. The right wing dictators (Pinochet, Franco) were fairly ruthless about shutting down opposition (although no worse than the others), but otherwise fairly easy going. If you compare the proportions of their populaion killed by Pinochet or Franco, it pales in comparison with the likes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler.

[stevo]

You are attempting, whether through ignorance or deceit I do not judge, to conflate different ideas. It is quite possible for an evil despot to be right wing. Not all evil despots are totalitarian though, and totalitarianism is an inherently left wing concept. (And before you try that straw man, the fact that all totalitarians are left wing is not a claim that all left wingers are totalitarians.) Totalitarianism is utterly incompatible with the disdain for central government control which is central to right wing ideology.

No, that would be YOUR right wing ideology. Or perhaps we're to believe that your version is the only one that matters? You'll forgive me for this view, but the cavalier manner with which you brush aside some fairly weighty opinion running counter to it can only support such a view.

viz...

The fact that Hitler and Mussolini were socialists is demonstrated by their policies. That generations of leftists have succeeded in indoctrinating the easily impressionable that just because they were authoritarian in their leftism they were really "far right" (despite the inherent contradiction) is tragic, if only for the level of gullibility it reveals. The description of the Nazis and Fascists as right wing was a trick of Stalin's propagandists who wanted to criticise their fellow leftists who they saw as a threat, and should be viewed through that prism.

I'll put a link somewhere in case anyone is tempted to believe the nonsense put about by people like Lord Bullock, Professor Sir David Cannadine or Lord Briggs, or whoever, that the truth is not to be found in their lengthy researches and scholarly work, but from the comments from a lone poster on a website forum whose principal feature is semi-naked men.

Anyway, in the interests of even-handedness, here's another source supporting the Hitler = Leftie view. It's a particularly fragrant website if you care to read elsewhere. My personal favourite is an essay explaining how all Nazis were essentially Pinko Faggots. Or how about the baroque take on a root of Hitler's evil being that he exercised TOO MUCH gun control?

Hitler Was A Leftie

This post has been edited by stevo: Jul 30 2012, 18:30

[Roger Mellie]

This quite an interesting analysis of it all...

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

Much of Nolan's work echoes this^

[sanitynotincluded]

No, that would be YOUR right wing ideology.

[i]

There is no such thing as "my right wing ideology" and "your right wing ideology". That which is right is right and that which is left is left. It isn't a subjective distinction.

The fact that Hitler and Mussolini were...

...exercised TOO MUCH gun control?

Hitler Was A Leftie

You really don't grasp reason, do you? The fact that the website you chose to link to may or may not contain other questionable opinions in no way invalidates any valid arguments it might make. The argument they make is by no means comprehensive, but it does contain most of the key points. Exactly which of the following, (written by messrs HITLER and Drexler) are you suggesting is not leftist?

"The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good. "
"The abolition of incomes unearned by work"
"personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits."
"We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations"
"We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age"
"We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises. "
"the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, "
" We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. * "
"legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports"
"We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people's army"
" To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states. "

The fact that when they took power the implementation of some of these was de facto rather than de jure is enough to make them the very thing of which they were in both theory and practice the antithesis.

[Humpty Dumpty]

The Daily Mail (forgive me Father, for I have sined in reading that shameful rag) had rather a good spoof on Mr Romney:

The Republican candidate Mitt Romney answers all your holiday problems...


Q&A: Mitt is determined to answer the most vexing of questions
Dear Mitt, My family and I are thinking of vacationing in Paris, France. Just one thing: no one can tell us which country it’s in. Please help!

Jeff Bickle, Idaho.
MITT SAYS: That’s one question that I’m absolutely determined to address, Jeff. You ask: where is Paris, France? Good question.

Well, I tell you this, Jeff. The strength of our nation lies in challenging the challenges that continue to challenge us, and challenging them honestly, and with all the force at our disposal.

So let us be strong, because a strong America is our only assurance that prosperity will follow hardship. I hope that answers your question, Jeff.

Dear Mitt, What was your favourite part of your recent vacation in London, England?

Sally-Ann Travis, New Hampshire.

MITT SAYS: Don’t listen to the cynics, Sally-Ann. Never believe them when they try to tell you I made any so-called ‘gaffes’. Not true!

My recent visit to London was an unqualified success, no question. Without my intervention, those Olympic Games might never have started.

You see, I have to be honest with you, you can’t start a race without a pistol.

The right to bear arms is what made our country strong. As I told Prime Minister David uh, David uh, as I made plain to the Prime Minister, the pistol is what keeps the Olympic spirit alive, and no athlete, man, woman or child, should ever have to go out on that track without one.


A question of geography: The exact location of Paris seems to remain elusive
Dear Mitt, Have you discovered the location of Paris, France, yet?

Jeff Bickle, Idaho.
MITT SAYS: Thanks for asking this important question again, my friend. In pursuit of an answer I greatly appreciated the insights and perspectives of Britain’s leaders of the government and the opposition. Between them, they were able to inspire some valuable insights — and, as for the discovery of that particular location, Jeff, I remain very encouraged.

Dear Mitt, Is there a foreign country you would recommend for a vacation?
Lee Sawyer, Texas.

MITT SAYS: It’s hard to know just how well any vacation abroad will turn out — and, let’s face facts, my friend, abroad is where these foreign countries tend to be, no one’s disputing that.

There are a few things about abroad that are, frankly, disconcerting. It’s no secret that these countries are openly run by foreigners.

There are stories about people being forced to eat Chinese food in China, and to wear bowler hats in Britain, and being required to drive around on camels in the desert, and that obviously is not something which is encouraging.

Uh-oh! Might I just add a few words by way of clarification to the words I have just clarified, whether intentionally or not?


I’m absolutely convinced that the American people are ready to vacation abroad. Vacations are not about vacations, they’re about the people who go on vacations.

I trust people, I’m sorry, but I do. That’s why vacations, wherever they may be held, are often highly successful, even when they are taken abroad.

And — yes — that’s why I stand by what I say, and, moreover, to say by what I stand.

The maximum hand baggage allowance for international flights these days seems to stumble Mitt
Dear Mitt, What’s the maximum hand baggage allowance for international flights these days?

P van Z, Wisconsin.

MITT SAYS: Good question, my friend, and a question that fully deserves a straight answer. That’s why I want to focus on the growing challenges to the foundations of our national strength.

How we confront these challenges will determine what kind of America we will bequeath to our children and our grandchildren.

For I believe that a strong America is our only assurance that America will continue to be the strong America I believe in: an America that allows us to believe in a strong America, an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in.

I trust that answers your question, my friend.

Dear Mitt, My family and I are still desperate to know the exact location of Paris, France. Mighty grateful for any help you can offer us, Mitt!

Jeff Bickle, Idaho.

MITT SAYS: I’m honoured and humbled that you should ask me this question for a third time. I stand by what I didn’t say earlier, though at this point in time I’m unfamiliar with precisely what I didn’t say, but I will be unyielding in my quest for clarification — and that’s a promise, my friend."

[stevo]

There is no such thing as "my right wing ideology" and "your right wing ideology". That which is right is right and that which is left is left. It isn't a subjective distinction.

Since when did political doctrines become a priori knowledge? If "right" and "wrong" are not absolutes, how can "right" and "left" be?

You really don't grasp reason, do you? The fact that the website you chose to link to may or may not contain other questionable opinions in no way invalidates any valid arguments it might make.

Well who would argue against a valid argument which is not invalid? Can't fault you there. But I can question the company you keep (in the loosest sense of course) and also why it seems difficult to find a source sharing your view which doesn't seem to have a rather fanatical agenda lurking behind it.

[Nosferatu]

Since when did political doctrines become a priori knowledge? If "right" and "wrong" are not absolutes, how can "right" and "left" be?

Whilst I'm absolutely loathe to agree with or defend anything Sanity says, he's actually completely right on this one. Right Wing and Left Wing are long-established political ideologies, which although they may evolve over time, are clearly defineable and identifiable. Generally speaking you cannot have an opinion on what is Right Wing or not, its either subscribes to the ideology or it doesn't.

[stevo]

Whilst I'm absolutely loathe to agree with or defend anything Sanity says, he's actually completely right on this one. Right Wing and Left Wing are long-established political ideologies, which although they may evolve over time, are clearly defineable and identifiable. Generally speaking you cannot have an opinion on what is Right Wing or not, its either subscribes to the ideology or it doesn't.

That is a different point. A long established ideology is not the same as an objective fact.

For that to be the case, there could only be one possible set of right wing and left wing values. The range of ideological stances of administrations across the world now and in the past counters that view. Nor need they have evolved the way they have. Beyond a handful of generic principles, they are not absolute.

This post has been edited by stevo: Aug 1 2012, 20:52

[Nosferatu]

Whilst I'm absolutely loathe to agree with or defend anything Sanity says, he's actually completely right on this one. Right Wing and Left Wing are long-established political ideologies, which although they may evolve over time, are clearly defineable and identifiable. Generally speaking you cannot have an opinion on what is Right Wing or not, its either subscribes to the ideology or it doesn't.

That is a different point. A long established ideology is not the same as an objective fact.

For that to be the case, there could only be one possible set of right wing and left wing values. The range of ideological stances of administrations across the world now and in the past counters that view. Nor need they have evolved the way they have. Beyond a handful of generic principles, they are not absolute.

You can't really judge it by "administrations" though, the need to please a broad range of voters in order to retain power often results in largely Right or Left "administrations" adopting the "Centre" ground. However, that doesn't apply to individuals or organisations who identify as either Right Wing or Left Wing ideologically - they either subscribe to the existing historical framework or they don't.

[sanitynotincluded]

why it seems difficult to find a source sharing your view which doesn't seem to have a rather fanatical agenda lurking behind it.

It isn't difficult at all, but I can't comment as to why it seems so to you. If you want to start, I'd recommend you start with "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. He has quite an engaging style and covers the material fairly well. Also, as he writes for both the National Review, and the LA Times, his mainstream bona fides are reasonably sound. (Although from a purely logical perspective I'd point out that your attempt to disqualify an argument on the basis of supposed fanaticism by the person advancing it is an Ad Hominem.)

That is a different point. A long established ideology is not the same as an objective fact.

No, but what constitutes part of a given ideology is objective fact.

For that to be the case, there could only be one possible set of right wing and left wing values.

Correct.

The range of ideological stances of administrations across the world now and in the past counters that view.

Non Sequitur. This assumes not only that administrations are ideologically consistant, but also that the same values, when applied to different situations and/or national characteristics, will yield the same policies. Neither is true.

This post has been edited by sanitynotincluded: Aug 1 2012, 23:48

[sanitynotincluded]

This quite an interesting analysis of it all...

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

Much of Nolan's work echoes this^

While the principle he is outlining is sound, the positioning of various figures leaves much to be desired.

Anyone who implements, as Hitler did, near complete state control of the entire economy and advocates policies such as the compulsary appropriation of land without compensation cannot be placed even slightly to the right, and the idea that Thatcher was closer to Hitler on the authoritarian stakes than she was to Friedman is a pathetic slur.

As for the idea that Stephen Harper is a slightly more authoritarian version of Barack Obama and that both reside equally to the left of Hu Jintao, it is utterly risible.

This post has been edited by sanitynotincluded: Aug 1 2012, 23:48

[sanitynotincluded]

You can't really judge it by "administrations" though, the need to please a broad range of voters in order to retain power often results in largely Right or Left "administrations" adopting the "Centre" ground. However, that doesn't apply to individuals or organisations who identify as either Right Wing or Left Wing ideologically - they either subscribe to the existing historical framework or they don't.

Unfortunately there tends to be a lot of cart before horse thinking on this. People are prone to thinking both that a given party is right/left wing therefore it's policies must be right/left wing, (often without questioning why they are holding the party in question to be right/left wing) and also that they consider themselves to be right/left wing, and therrefore individuals/parties/policies they disagree with must be left/right wing.

Your point on politicians wanting to appeal to people is well made, although I would take it further. What politicians are able to get away with is heavily influenced by what went before. Although Blair was somewhat to the left of Thatcher in inclination, much of what he did was somewhat to the right of a lot of what she did, because over eighteen years the nation had shifted enough that in the early eighties she could not have got away with being as right wing as he had to be in the late nineties.

[stevo]

This assumes not only that administrations are ideologically consistant, but also that the same values, when applied to different situations and/or national characteristics, will yield the same policies. Neither is true.

If administrations are not ideologically consistent, how can you therefore assert that one of the most inconsistent, and therefore dangerous, i.e. Nazism, is unambiguously left wing? You cite property sequestration as being of the left, but where does one of the 'signature' ideologies of Nazism - racial superiority - sit?

[sanitynotincluded]

Do you think these things through before posting them, or do you genuinely subscribe to these ridiculous notions. Inconsistency is not inherently dangerous.

This is in any case a complete straw man. Nobody has suggested that Nazism is unambiguously left wing, but a few ambiguities do not remove them from the field of leftwing governments. Ambiguities in leftism do not outweigh heresies in rightism.

When it comes to racial superiority theories, they aren't inherently left or right, but it is worth noting that before the horrors of Nazi Germany came to light, they were broadly supported by those of impeccable leftist credentials, as were the eugenic policies. The left wing obsession with promoting the fascism = right wing calumny requires a lot of airbrushing of their ideological history.

The only other thing to point out is that Racial supremacy was rather less a signature ideology than a politically expedient conspiracy theory which helped distract the wider populace from other failings.

[stevo]

When it comes to racial superiority theories, they aren't inherently left or right

I'm assuming we also need to ignore their views on Marxism as Jewish propaganda. And also their attitudes to private property ownership as a vehicle for their Lebensraum policy, not to mention anti-internationalist policies in general.

You assert that the racial supremacy policy was merely politically expedient. Could the same not be said about their anti-capitalist attitudes? Would this have been so if the Jews hadn't been so commercially effective? Wasn't their whole centrist policy not a function of the desire to purge the country of undesirables, whether capitalist, communist or whatever?

I'm wondering how many 'ambiguities' your portrayal of fascism's left-wing credentials can withstand.

Inconsistency is not inherently dangerous.

It is if you're in charge and a homicidal maniac. Sir Thomas More's office under Henry VIII springs to mind.