I for one can be described as both right-wing and left-wing. I am basically "leftist" on certain issues and "right- wing" on others. Centrist isnt even close to accurate though because I am rather contemptuous of "moderate" politics which merely reeks of political correctness and intellectual laziness or naivete as far as im concerned. Moderate is a synonym for boring or irrelevant politics.I dont believ in some "balance" or "moderate" political postion.
In fact in one of my classes on Tuesday somebody said he heard a quote that two organized crime syndicates run the country and they're called the Democrats and the Republicans. I heartily agree. Just like in South Park you vote for a Douche or a Turd Sandwich. It isnt "who is the best candidate for our nation?" its "what candidate sucks the least?"
So when people ask I tell them I reject the broad overgeneralized political spectrum and the often false dichotomy of "Left vs Right". Plus peopel are often narrow minded as far as government goes by which I mean that "Democracy" is the bestest government ever and cant even seem to comprehend alternatives. Although its not like Democracy is a word with much meaning anyways it is abused far more than it is used accurately. It seems that Democracy is whatever gives people the rhetorical advantage and claim that their opponents are enemies of freedom or other nonsense.
The US will fail or lose its status primarily from the failure of Democracy. By which I mean that people substitute reasoned debate and critical examination of the issues for ignorant populism and empty rhetoric that scratches their itching ears. Democracy REQUIRES an educated public and lots of debate or discussion. When empty rhetoric replaces meaningful dialogue disaster looms in the foreground.
well, yeah, "conservative vs. liberal" is over-simplified, there is also libertarian and statist (or something like that.) So you end up with a x,v graph of where a person falls in their political tendancies. Why do seem so sure Obama is liberal? He hasn't legalized pot or anything like that...
What exactly is this supposed to mean? Both are more likely to be 'liberal', unless the people who've taken political science also focus on international security or economics.
Forget about America losing super power status, the smart money is on Humankind. Man cannot live by Big Mac alone! Our consumerist culture is turning vapid in it's own wake, and collapsing under its own weight. We consume an outrageously disproportionate percentage (over 25%) of the worlds resources, yet we are less than 5% of the population. World Watch
As Howard Beal (The Mad Prophet of the Airwaves) put it so eloquently; "All human beings are becoming humanoids. All over the world, not just in America. We're just getting there faster since we're the most advanced country."
The corporations of the world are the real future of our democracy (oligarchy): Globalist View of Corporate States
Our educational system is designed to turn out isatiatiable consmers; the truth about the invasion of the body snatchers: Nation of Educated Idiots
So screw China, it's the multinational corporations you need to worry about.
Whatever, Baudrillard.
"Ney, Ney, 'tis the fruit of the id to trounce the spoken for the heard."
The concurrent spread of the hyperreal through the media and the collapse of liberal and Marxist politics as the master narratives, deprives the rational subject of its privileged access to truth. In an important sense individuals are no longer citizens, eager to maximise their civil rights, nor proletarians, anticipating the onset of communism. They are rather consumers, and hence the prey of objects as defined by the code.
Based on American politics (he's the American President, not a member of Labour), he is certainly not a centrist.
Your conclusion comes from speculation, not history.
Until China and India become superpowers, you cannot claim that their actions represent a "modern shift" in superpower behavior.
China is still in the iron age as far as super powers go. China wont pose a threat to the US position in the world til it learns to treat its 1 billion people better.
Obviously not. I don't think that anyone would argue that Obama is a centrist with respect to other American politicians.
US defense analysts disagree (although they might be motivated by the need to secure funding).
Well, with a hatred for consumerism and liking for phrases like 'collapsing under its own weight', you could be the next great pataphysician.
I don't hate consumerism. I am one of the best! What I intensely dislike though is toxic over-consumption.
And while all this psuedo political diatribe is bantered about, your footprint just got heavier. To ignore the impact we as consumers have on our environment is foolish, and to act glib about it is criminal. But what is worse is the hedonistic moral vacuum that it fosters.
But then anyone who drops references to arcane ideology when presented with engaging dialogue surely approximates chaos theory in action. But thanks again for the pataphysical send up.
So taking political science or playing a video game makes you liberal? That makes no sense.
And the conservative party doesn't seem to be overly concerned with international security or economics... only blocking whatever the opposing party tries to achieve.
yeah, if you believe Rush Dimbaugh. Seriously, seems you are making a statement based of what the mass media says.
Dimbaugh, lol!
You're a funny guy!
Nope. Correlation and causation and all that. Those groups just happen to be more liberal than not. (Going by the American spectrum.) The economics and international security comment was based on my personal experiences. Demographics might be different at other universities.
not to mention other states. In my exp. most the classes were about 50-50 conservative to liberal. Funny that you should mention national security and econ. as my prof. was a former intelligence officer; he was one kick @ss dude (for being in his 70's)