Does it mean the same for everyone or its a spectrum of ideas?
"Far-left politics are political views located further on the left of the left-right spectrum than the standard political left. The term has been used to describe ideologies ...
"Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies."
American Nazi Party
American Freedom Party
America First Party
America's Party (political party)
National Socialist Movement
Just my opinion - the far left are generally more liberal, while the far right is generally more conservative in their views.
Those on the far left appear to believe society is always best served with an expanded role of government. Such as health insurance, high taxation of the wealthy, government schools, government programs to support giveaways. People on the far right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount. That the Constitution is kept as written and to keep government out of the citizen's lives as much as possible. The far right encourages prosperity through education and hard work.
... think farther.
....... think deep state.
.................. think deep state creating both the way far left and the way far right.
Sharlee01 you are describing left and right politics. Not far-left or far-right.
For instance: National Socialist Movement (United States) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ … _Movement_(United_States)
The National Socialist Movement (NSM) is a neo-Nazi organization based in Detroit, Michigan. It is a part of the Nationalist Front.
Ethnic group: White Americans
Political position: Far-right
Headquarters: Detroit, Michigan, U.S
Youth wing: Viking Youth Corp
Nationalist Front · Traditionalist Worker Party · James Hart Stern
... should the Far Right and the Far Left do battle with one another, or do they end up agreeing with one another?
Interesting question. They do appear to agree, on certain things. Antisemitism appears to be a trait of both far end ideologies. But, both ends appear to be born of hate, so that makes sense.
The scary thing, to me, is the difference in how the main stream in both parties differ in their reaction to extremism associated with the left or right. The right has a firm and deep line in the sand ostracizing the far right. They want no part of them. The left appears to embrace and idolize the far left.
"The right has a firm and deep line in the sand ostracizing the far right. They want no part of them. The left appears to embrace and idolize the far left."
I don't see that at all. Conservatism today is just a watered down and polite version of far right politics. Statistics state that 2/3rd to 3/4 of domestic violence in this country is due to right wing advocates. So the worse that the left can do, Green Party politics and AOC does not produce body counts, is that not correct?
So regardless of your opinion, the intolence of the Right is always the worse than what could pass for that on the Left.
You know credence, because it is possible to maliciously misuse statistical information in order to press a personal agenda...I have lived long enough to rely on my own eyes and ears to determine the veracity of a claimed stand, within the real world.
I suppose, if we attempt to break violence down into sub categories and actively seek out a subcategory that neatly fits our preconceived prejudice, we can all happily claim some sub category as our own proof of a problem. That appears, to me (by my own observation) to be a particular favorite of apologists from the left.
Edit. Quick Google search found this.
https://www.verywellmind.com/domestic-v … city-62648
Perhaps, but I have and ears as well, and this statistical bias is true from both sides, so why give the Right a free pass? We see and acknowledge what we wish and as I have said before who is to say that your Opinion is any more objective than mine?
What about your perceived prejudices and biases are you going to deny that you have them?
I was just commenting on your claim. That isn't giving either side a pass. It was simply pointing out that your misrepresention of facts isn't going to go unchallenged.
Misrepresentation of the facts? Really. What I don't like about conservatives is how they will deny the validity of any information source that fails to syncs with their agenda, anti global warming, I.e.
Can you really have a dispute with this article, or will you say that that, too is just left wing propaganda?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrori … ted_States
A perfunctory look...why would I disagree? But, I define terrorism more broadly so the statistics would change, if I were in charge. Gangs,to me, should be labeled terrorists. So, by that addition, your statistics get skewed.
Why give a free ride to murder and violence in the larger cities? Why give a free ride to the drug traffickers? Why give a free ride to anything that terrorizes the highest number of innocent individuals in our country? Why give a free ride to the major problems holding our youth down?
To turn a blind eye to what negatively affects the largest number of individuals in our country, serves whose agenda? Which side of the aisle ignores, exacerbates and defends these problems?
For Pete's sake L to L are you comparing general criminal activity with ideologically driven terrorism? Now you are misdirecting this discussion as Conservative are apt to do when faced with undeniable facts and statistics.
Your last paragraph is a generality than you cannot support with any factual data. So now, if I am reading you correctly, you associate the political Left with promoting crime in our major cities? Where does this come from? I can see more than just a taint of bias here.
We have had crime since the founding of this republic, if you are trying to refer to this phenomenon of American life as "domestic terrorism" as properly defined, then you are way off base.
I think that ignoring the fact that tons and tons of drugs cross our southern border exacerbates the problem with drugs and gangs. I don't think it would be difficult for you to corroborate the fact that cities such as Chicago, with the highest murder rates, have been controlled by democrats throughout most of the violence.
I'm not attempting to redirect. I'm pointing out that ideology and culture are not so different. You want to blame some fringe lunatics for our problems. So, let's define fringe lunatic. If it is someone who promotes violence by word and deed, why do we ignore the most violent groups?
Ideology is a system of beliefs and ideas used to formulate economic or political theory. Drug culture, gang culture, etc is the direct result of beliefs and ideas one falls back on to justify the economic system of the illegal drug trade, it's beliefs and ideas which causes gangs to enforce their 'laws' on helpless people living in proximity.
When you have a party who wants to pretend these problems don't exist, who attempt to demonize any who accept their existence and want to find ways to fight them and consider it racist to point out that some sectors of our society are not attempting to play nicely (which basically comes across as the left thinking those pockets are somehow beneath those who can..as if those pockets are somehow incapable of understanding the need to have some respect for others), I do not think it is unfair to characterize that party as exacerbating the problem. I don't think it is unreasonable to question if they don't, in fact, prop up these systems that terrorize innocents and murder them; either by gun violence, burglary, murder and/or drug overdoses.
A most interesting discussion as we can get a lot of things into the open air.
Look at your first paragraph. Large cities by their very nature are going to have more crime related problems then, say Muskogee, Oklahoma, right?
Also there is a tendency for largely diverse and highly educated people to flock to cities with the jobs and opportunities, these people tend to vote Democratic. So, it is not just Chicago. So in a Democratic stronghold, it is most probable that you would have a mayor affiliated with the Democratic Party. So can you prove that in a large city with a Republican mayor that the statistics associated with crime expected for any large metropolitan area is magically absent? So your points here do not follow logically. So, just because there is a Democratic mayor, can it be said that they are responsible for the crime rates.?
Furthermore, you are expanding the intent of my comment. I said more violent instances of domestic terrorism is coming from Right leaning extremists rather than from the left, are you going to acknowledge that?
People can say and believe anything they want, when that word or deed translate into violent action then I have a problem with it. I don't equate 9-11 or "Oklahoma City" with crime associated with street gangs. Al Capone led a gang and was violent too, but is that ideologically based terrorism or simply the foundation of any crime; to acquire unjust gain? There is the answer to your "drug culture/gang culture". It has nothing to do with ideological dogma, it is just crime.
It is your biased opinion that Democrats want to ignore the existence of crime in this society. You might go into the aspect of your last paragraph a bit more succinctly as I am having trouble following your reasoning here.
Let's be clear. Your exact words were domestic violence. That term encompasses a lot of ground. But, if we are going to thin it down to domestic terrorism then, again, I say let's be honest about the term terrorism. I think we have different views. I think anyone terrorized is a victim of terrorism. Which means all violence. So, your argument about fringe groups, mostly white male, falls flat. If we thin the term down to include only groups who terrorize, again, your argument falls flat. If we attempt to thin it down to only terror which is the result of political or economic ideology your claim, sadly, continues to fall flat. If we then water it down even more and insist it only encompasses political and religious ideology then we have to carefully review the mindset of the individual involved. We have to determine if a reasonable adult would consider the behavior the product of ideology or mental illness. But, for the sake of your argument, in order to claim some semblance of truth, I understand why it is important to push a belief that any white male who is a member of a violent organization must have a political agenda that has been arrived at through an abundance of availability of all facts and has logically (no matter how flawed the logic) arrived at a far right and violent stand.
I doubt we'd be able to come to an agreement on what is fairly labeled terrorism.
It's like Jussie Smollet. If guilty, on the surface it can be viewed as a reverse hate crime and an attempt to smear the name of the president and any of his supporters who are white. The truth of the matter is probably more along the lines that the guy was seeking some form of infamy in order to raise his value for contract negotiations. But, the race thing gets more play and will probably win out in the court of public opinion.
As to your comment about Democrat vs Republican mayors. The mayor is one small part of the whole. One has to look at long term policy throughout the government of any area.
But, in fairness, I don't have the time or interest to support my comment other than to point out that crime, homelessness, drug abuse, the rise of third world health issues etc. seem to be most prevalent in proudly liberal strongholds. But, it is correct to point out this is merely anecdotal evidence and shouldn't be used as a claim.
Your 'crime is just crime' comment is a problem, for me. Because if you pretend nothing drives it, it will never get better and will, most likely, get worse. I don't live in a crime ridden area which would drive such a defeatist attitude. I see people who participate in such as needing help. I see them as extremists driven to it by circumstance and a lack of ability to empathize (which can also be driven by circumstance). Your opinion, to me, sounds like one which thinks crime is a natural part of life. One which sees extremism as acceptable, under certain conditions.
We are both biased credence. The important question to ask is what drives it? What do we think of humans, individually? As adults are they equal and capable? Should they be held accountable for their decisions? Do some get some semblance of a free pass for violence? I see you as making excuses for some, holding others accountable. And I see it as passing through a litmus test of your personal politics.
No, I said " domestic terrorism".
The terrorism I speak of is regarding religious and political bases.
And I am talking about confrontation by these groups with the general society that have cost lives. I did not say anything about WHITE males specifically, you said that.
The Smollet affair did not get anyone killed.
So, how has the long term governance of an area change the significance of my statement about the nature of city and large city?
What you "point out" is erroneous and chapter 1 verse 1 of the standard Rightwing playbook. What these people have in common is poverty and being poor, first and they as a result of the GOP view toward people such as them are going to vote Democratic. Is that so much of a surprise?
This society has always a crime problem, and it is to certain extent and inevitable and as natural as human nature. The idea that in this brutal capitalistic system a peaceful and harmonious society is possible, is drivel.
If I lived in Muskogee Oklahoma rather than Miami, I would have to consider crime a lesser problem. Poverty, and the nefarious nature of some people drive crime and that has not changed since the Ancients.
On the other hand I see you making excuses for some and holding others accountable. Regardless, domestic terrorism has a specific meaning and ideological buttress beyond just robbing the corner drug store.
You are right, we do see things differently.
The sad thing is I think, were you and I put in charge of resolving a national problem we could find common ground. I truly believe that whether we disagree on causes we could agree on a path toward solutions. Because I would listen, and I think you would also.
That's all I expect of politicians and none of what I'm seeing. An attempt to understand where the other side is coming from.
I do think, in a situation such as this, you are playing to what you perceive as a larger audience. I'm just speaking my mind. I honestly believe right wing radicals are no different from any other criminal. They have no sway on politics. They are outside the boundaries of decent behavior. Certainly a politician will calculate if pandering to them might garner votes but isn't that exactly what the left is doing with extremists on the left? They are politicians. Their behavior is because they seek power. They don't (either side) necessarily agree. If they did wouldn't it be logical to think they would actually work to create policy reflecting the will of the majority of their constituents? Neither side is. They are just pandering and blustering.
As to domestic terrorism vs people coming in from outside of our borders to facilitate terror....of course those citizens would have more opportunity to perpetuate violence and more freedom to move about which would cause them more opportunity to create chaos. But, do you honestly think a rational argument includes downplaying the danger of international terrorism? That's what your argument, basically, does.
If you say crime is just crime you have no reason, or right, to then demonize certain forms of it. It is just crime, after all. Left, right, religious, political, economic....it's just crime.
I think it depends on timeframe. I learned to have contempt for the far left in the '60s and '70s because it went too far left.
The pendulum has swung the other way. The far right has gone too far right. Now it is worthy of contempt.
In another generation, it wouldn't suprise me to see the pendulum swing back the other way. It's just a long-term social pattern.
I hear you Promisem. We had our Weathermen and SDS, etc. but it was so long ago and even in the depths of it all, it pales against the racist anti-government assault associated with McVeigh and Oklahoma City in 1995, absolutely pure Right wing, absolutely pure.
The far right has always been as worthy of contempt as the far left. I just don't see the left having any desire in defining 'far'. Anything goes.
And it's gotten so bad that now moderates within the party are scared to stand up against them. They brought it on themselves, though.
I agree with your first sentence but not your second. Anything goes with both extremes throughout history.
I have read a number of times how both parties have worked to force out their moderates. Maybe it's one reason why the two parties are now so far apart and unable to compromise.
Well said, the Democratic Party has become more leftist in scope while the Republican Party has become more right. At this historical juncture, there is no such thing as a traditional or moderate Democratic nor Republican Party. This was predicted in the book GENERATIONS ,THE HISTORY OF AMERICA'S FUTURE, 1584 to 2069 by William Strauss & Neil Howe.
Science will save us.
Truth will save us. We must get on the same page.
How will that happen?
Belief in God.
Mighty Triple O
by mio cid 9 years ago
Is Ron Paul giving birth to a movement that can develop into a full fledged political party?Maybe attracting real independents not the pseudo independents that are really just to the left of the democratic party or to the right of the republican party?
by ga anderson 16 months ago
Sanders' positive comments about Cuba's socialism prompted a look around.I found plenty of anti-Bernie thoughts, but I kept looking until I found one that I thought was least biasedMy thoughts:First, Cuba has a lot of problems, and not a few of them are caused by American sanctions. So, we are not...
by Credence2 2 months ago
A little background, folkshttps://www.opb.org/article/2020/11/16/ … -now-what/Have a look at that revised Greater Idaho, is that not ridiculous?I say to those dispossessed types, if you don't like Oregon and its politics, just move to Idaho!!We had such a move in Colorado with the sod...
by Arthur Russ 12 months ago
As a European, the one thing I find most confusing about American Politics is that the Republicans are ‘Red’ and Democrats ‘Blue’; the complete opposite to most of the rest of the world.It does not matter how hard I try I can never get use to a ‘Right-wing’ political party using the colour of...
by Repairguy47 8 years ago
1. Economic Fascism – Like the National Socialists, Democrats want to maintain the façade of private ownership while putting control in the hands of the state. Whether a business prospered or failed in the Third Reich depended on political pull – how close industrialists were to the Nazi...
by Ken Burgess 20 months ago
A serious question, posed more to those who identify as Democrats. I would really like to know who you believe will come forth with a message of unification, prosperity, and a positive outlook toward the future... someone mainstream Americans could believe in.
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|