Mitt Romney, in the wake of his "47%" comments, told Fox News that government redistribution of wealth is an "entirely foreign concept" to Americans.
He repeated the point today: "I know there are some who believe that if you simply take from some and give to others then we'll all be better off. It's known as redistribution. It's never been a characteristic of America."
Despite being factually wrong, he has hit upon a central reason why American politics can seem so very different to what happens in Europe, including in Britain. Specifically, conservatism here is very different from conservatism there.
There is a large section of the American right, indeed of the American people, which does not accept the grand central bargain of post-war politics across the other side of the Atlantic....
Robert Dougall wrote: Yes. But it also brought about the great post-war consensus of British government policy exemplified by Butskellism as referenced in the article.
Since you rejected pretended impartiality as a myth, the only logical response must be, yes, all of them whether they are conscious of it or not. Or have I misunderstood you?
I thought you were speaking of the modern BBC, not the one of the past, which I do not know well enough to evaluate. I was curious how broad a net you were casting in your comparison. For my part, I see little difference between the BBC (at least, as seen on the Internet) & US sources other than Fox.
Neil wrote: I daresay that depends mightily on one's politics, or on the politics of those reporting on said events.
Yes. But it also brought about the great post-war consensus of British government policy exemplified by Butskellism as referenced in the article.
Neil wrote: Which US broadcasters? All of them?
Since you rejected pretended impartiality as a myth, the only logical response must be, yes, all of them whether they are conscious of it or not. Or have I misunderstood you?
Robert Dougall wrote: But mass protests, civil unrest, tea parties etc. would be good indicators.
I daresay that depends mightily on one's politics, or on the politics of those reporting on said events. Would you say that the Occupy Movement is as ”dangerous to society” as Tea Partiers?
Robert Dougall wrote: there is a vast gulf between the tradition of objectivity in news reporting in UK broadcasting and the political positioning of US broadcasters.
Neil wrote: That also steps into philosophical ground. How do you know that a potential evil *could* prove dangerous? And what's "dangerous" anyway?
As per the article it is a pragmatic assessment (with no philosophical claim). But mass protests, civil unrest, tea parties etc. would be good indicators.
Neil wrote: OK, the BBC is not an exclusive monopoly, but it enjoys the status of a Royal Charter, & has fees (i.e. taxes) set by Parliament. My point was, any journalist working for the BBC has a conflict of interest in political reporting, notwithstanding its pretended impartiality, which is a myth. Even if a totally objective news story is possible to write, one has to choose which is important, a philosophical issue of the 1st rank.
Agree that no reporter can be totally objective. But there is a vast gulf between the tradition of objectivity in news reporting in UK broadcasting and the political positioning of US broadcasters.
BTW- Regulation is not alien to US broadcasting values as it is regulated by the FCC. Margaret Thatcher once said "If you ever get trial by television...that day, freedom dies." And she was referring to a major independent broadcaster that very soon had its license revoked.
Robert Dougall wrote: Observing that a developing situation could prove dangerous for society and good government does not necessarily imply a judgment (or beg a question) that it is a moral wrong.
That also steps into philosophical ground. How do you know that a potential evil *could* prove dangerous? And what's "dangerous" anyway?
OK, the BBC is not an exclusive monopoly, but it enjoys the status of a Royal Charter, & has fees (i.e. taxes) set by Parliament. My point was, any journalist working for the BBC has a conflict of interest in political reporting, notwithstanding its pretended impartiality, which is a myth. Even if a totally objective news story is possible to write, one has to choose which is important, a philosophical issue of the 1st rank.
Jim Lincoln wrote: . Since the Republicans are covered in verse 9 of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and the Demos in verse 10, generally it's definitely God's will, whoever leads this
looks like the dems have more than their fair share of crooks guilty of stealing. They even try to steal elections. Seeing the facts are overwhelming, am sure independent Jim will agree.
Neil wrote: ”capitalism if left to its own devices produced inequalities which if not softened could prove dangerous.” But this journalist (who BTW, works for a government monopoly) begs a critical philosophical question: Why are such inequalities morally wrong?
Observing that a developing situation could prove dangerous for society and good government does not necessarily imply a judgment (or beg a question) that it is a moral wrong.
I prefer freedom over equality. Freedom will result in inequalities, so from this(my) perspective, inequality is good. The politics derived from this makes redistributionism appear as anti-freedom corruption.
”capitalism if left to its own devices produced inequalities which if not softened could prove dangerous.”
But this journalist (who BTW, works for a government monopoly) begs a critical philosophical question: Why are such inequalities morally wrong? Sure some businessmen get rich, but so what? And what's “rich” anyway?
I cannot understand why more people don't grasp this antecedent issue. Instead of debating politics, people should debate philosophy 1st, since the former depends upon the latter.
if he was willing to open up the energy markets, let am's drill for oil, etc and become their own nation again, he would have conservative support.
we're left debating mormonism.
when congress takes 16 trillion and gives it to private bankers that is redistribution.
when that amount equals in some estimated way the amount of debt accrued by the rep in hundreds of years, then one is able to understand what kind of redistribution is taking place before our eyes.
when M spends untold millions to defeat California's GM labeling campaign, that is another form of redistribution. people are forced into spending money on products (they would not want to buy), that according to the french study, maimed and killed their rats. if they were confident of their product, they would want it labeled, and their workers wouldhn't be fighting for rights to not have to eat GM foods in their cafeteria. ha!
compulsory legislation is another form of redistribution, where a product is mandated, such as many "health" initiatives. it is forcing someone's money and resources on something they would otherwise not buy.
apparantly america cannot produce anything anymore that people would voluntarily want. so they force it with legislation.....and that... is not....a free market.
Jim Lincoln wrote: 1) Ah, you gentlemen should read the entire article, which is quite interesting, Mark Mardell is something the BBC onlooker for the BBC and wrote such articles as,... wow! he was right on that! But more importantly none of them comes close to being Christian, --- 2) Since the Republicans are covered in verse 9 of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and the Demos in verse 10, generally it's definitely God's will, whoever leads this
1) How close to being Christian is Obama?
2) What made you decide to reverse the verse application? Actually the Democrats fit both verses nicely, being covetous, thieving redistributionists, who promote corrupt relationships. And we shouldn't forget one famous Democrat drunkard, Teddy K.
Mark Mardell in this SA thread wrote: Maybe it is something about presidents with three initials, but the real expansion of redistribution came with LBJ's Great Society.
Richard Nixon built on this, but many conservatives have never accepted the changes.
This is in contrast to Europe, where both main political traditions after World War II seemed to broadly agree that while Soviet Union-style socialism didn't work, capitalism if left to its own devices produced inequalities which if not softened could prove dangerous.
. Since the Republicans are covered in verse 9 of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and the Demos in verse 10, generally it's definitely God's will, whoever leads this
pauper wrote: "Communism arose as a reaction to a distribution of wealth in which a few lived in luxury while the masses lived in extreme poverty. In The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels wrote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." While the ideas of Marx have been embraced by various states (Russia, Cuba, Vietnam and China in the 20th century), Marxist utopia remains elusive" (Wiki) Perhaps Obama can achieve utopia?
We might ask what has changed under Communism? Obama would define utopia the same way as other utopians, but because "some animals are more equal than others," his utopia would end up similar to Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, and China. Which is another reason to vote him out of office. Socialist utopians, having inflated egos, never learn from history, so the people ought not let them have power.
"Communism arose as a reaction to a distribution of wealth in which a few lived in luxury while the masses lived in extreme poverty. In The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels wrote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." While the ideas of Marx have been embraced by various states (Russia, Cuba, Vietnam and China in the 20th century), Marxist utopia remains elusive" (Wiki)
Perhaps Obama can achieve utopia?
1
There are a total of 15 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Dr. Alan Cairns | 3/9/2009
Doug Greeley | 3/15/2009
COMMENTS | 
