StarDrifter wrote:
In as long as we are clarifying what sodomy, pedophilia, and other sexual terms are, I would like to point out the difference between political right and religious right. There is a large difference. The two sides do not always agree, either.
Well, if you want to go there;
The terms "right" and "left" as political labels are really only useful to people who are trying to obfuscate the real issues - and as such, a lot of people have lined up on one side or another, simply because of the label.
The pro-Corporate faction of the current coalition labeled (in the USA) as "Right" - and the pro-Theocracy faction, are actually diametrically opposed to eachother. At least in terms of what they believe in. They have united against a "common enemy" and that is what they perceive to be a Socialist/Atheist/Humanist bloc. (which is pure fantasy - at least in the USA).
There is some synergy in a Corporate/Theocratic alliance, in that both thrive on a population that remains docile, ignorant, weak, poor, and reproduces at an astounding rate. The more workers, the looser the labor market, the lower the Corporate cost of doing business (as long as there is a wealthy market to sell TO somewhere). But when a Corporatist like Richard Cheney (US Vice President) was cornered about his lesbian daughter having a baby with her partner, during an interview with Wolf Blitzer, he got all belligerent. You see, because he does not really believe in the religious claptrap that his daughter is going to hell. He sees the Christianists as a useful ally, to be used, and tricked. And they fall for it because they're gullible. And the corporatists are equally gullible, because they worship at the Altar of the Cult of the Invisible Hand.
If pro-Theocracy folks were to be intellectually honest about their belief system (that of American Exceptionalism - we are blessed by God because we, as a nation, are so Righteous, and therefore by virtue of this blessing, prosperous) - then they'd embrace some of the old levitical laws, like laws prohibiting Usury. (in fact, I believe Muslim countries mostly prohibit usury - defined as lending money for interest). If we were to do that, in the USA, there would certainly be a great damper on economic activity. The pro-Corporate faction would not like that. So, while the pro-Theocracy faction likes to dig out obscure passages attempting to get legislative support for things like Abortion Bans, and Gay Marriage Bans, they act stupid when it comes to Shrimp Eating Bans, and Blended Fabric Bans.
And if the pro-Corporation folks were to be intellectually honest about Free Markets, they'd do away with; well, um, Corporate Charters (as a government-granted legal fiction), Patents, Copyrights, using public roads, subsidies, public law enforcement, public education of their workforce, etc. But you see, the milk coming out of that government teat is just too sweet. They won't let it go. They'll talk about the evils of regulation, and market interference. But make no mistake, their worship at the Altar of the Cult of the Invisible Hand is also insincere.
Now - from a certain point of view, both Corporate Welfare, AND Theocratic-based law, are forms of Socialism. Only in Corporatism, a certain class of people is defined as eligible for benefitting from government spending (ie. special tax breaks, special access to lawmakers, wars, contracting, etc). This is a Socialist system, where the citizens and beneficiaries are the Corporations. Same with Theocratic-based law. Only you have to think of Churches as kind of Corporations. Their income is tax-exempt. Yet, tax money is spent on their recruiting efforts (through municipal religious displays, yes - I have no problem with that, but also through the public charity funding, and if they get their way, with public education vouchers).
All forms of Socialism (classical, corporatist, and theocratic) require the government to have power over individuals. To the degree that individual behavior is regulated (via taxation, patent and copyright, and codified religious law).
The opposite of these forms of Socialism, can be referred to as Libertarianism. Though I refuse to accept that there is a meaningful definition for that word. But in general, it's the desire for individual Liberty. That's not so bad. Rights to free speech. Rights to free exercise (or lack thereof) of religion. Rights to a fair trial. Rights to privacy. Hardcore Libertarians are not at all Rightwing. They are branded rightwing, because they have, since about the mid-1990's generally allied themselves with the Republican Party. And as the Christianists have been appalled at all the sex scandals and fraud and bribery and corruption of the Republicans of the last 7 years, the Libertarians are appalled at the SPENDING. They don't believe in taxes at all. And by borrowing money, Bush is just deferring taxes to the next generation (and hiding behind the same BS "laffer curve" garbage that Reagan hid behind - and demonstrated its illegitimacy, by the way).
An extreme form of Libertarianism (by my definition) is Anarchy. The moderate form is the Constitutional Democratic Republic. The opposite is, well, examples would be any Monarchy, Stalinism, Naziism, and what America seems to be headed towards. We could be all Stephen Covey and lay the Left/Right dichotomy on top of this Libertarian/Authoritarian dichotomy, and make a quadrant-based system. And this is what a lot of political scientists do.
But thinking in terms of Libertarian/Authoritarian does not make anybody any money. Libertarianism may generate wealth, but Authoritarianism concentrates it. And concentrated wealth is what attracts opportunists who like to call themselves "politicians". Who work to get ahold of power, so they can broker it to the monied interests. So it's in their interest to push aside arguments based on whether someone has the right to know what porn I like to mastrubate to, and prosecute me as a criminal for it, and bring forth arguments about whether I'm hurting society in some way by my private behavior. It's a compelling argument, and a profitable one. So they create this false dichotomy of Left and Right. Then they sell power to one side, then the other. Just as America, the world's biggest arms dealer, sells weapons to one side, then another, then meddles enough to trigger conflict, and thus a demand for these products. (and of course, the American Taxpayer can just as easily get scammed too).
Now - the funny part is how the "Right" tries to accuse the "Left" of being pro terrorist because we oppose the war. I've never met an American Liberal who thought it would be a great idea if we adopted Sharia in Western Culture. You know, ban alcohol, ban porn, put women in bhurkas, and lock them in the kitchen. It's an absurd idea. But you hear this crap all the time, and the reason it has any legs at all, is because it plays to this bullshit "left vs right" false dilemma.
So when I talk about "rightwing" propaganda - I'm talking about the self-identified bloc that has been classically aligned in this country on and off for about the last 40-50 years (since McCarthy, but also during Hoover's reign, so maybe even longer). I realize there's a faction in there that is Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal. And I realize that right now, in history, the Libertarian faction and the Christianist faction are trying to distance themselves from the Republican party. They'll be back. Every once in a while, the Libertarians flirt with the Left (until someone on the Left mentions Single Payer Health Care, or video-game violence). Sometimes the Libertarians find a politician that speaks to them (like Ross Perot - who ran on "Fiscal Conservative, Socially Liberal"). But the Corporatist siren song of "deregulation" and "flat tax" always calls them back home like the siren's song. The Christianists will be back too. They've got nowhere else to go. Give them a year or two to forget about Mark Foley. They'll dangle an Abortion Ban or Flag Burning Ban in front of their noses, and they'll be back.
