![Baker School of Public Policy and Public Affairs](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- Видео 95
- Просмотров 90 771
Baker School of Public Policy and Public Affairs
США
Добавлен 15 июн 2010
The Baker School is the first and only school of its kind at any public university in Tennessee, and its mission is to graduate skilled public problem solvers who are prepared to take leadership roles as public servants, public administrators, policy analysts, policy entrepreneurs or candidates for public office. The Baker School teaches students to embrace the competition of ideas as a way of reaching more durable solutions, offering a way forward for those with the resolve to make things better.
Graduate School Proves to be a Dream Come True for Featured Twirler Faith Barrett
@UTbakerschool MPA grad student Faith Barrett also holds the title of featured twirler as a majorette in the Pride of the Southland Band. "When Rocky Top is playing, and you hear all the fans singing, it is one of the coolest things I've ever been a part of."
Hear more from Faith about her twirling skills, ambitions after grad school, and why she chose @UTknoxville.
Hear more from Faith about her twirling skills, ambitions after grad school, and why she chose @UTknoxville.
Просмотров: 25
Видео
New Vols move in on RockyTop!
Просмотров 9221 день назад
This week, we spent some time with @utbakerschool inaugural class members Emma and Jackson as they packed up their things and moved to @utknoxville. Listen as they describe the move to @UTKHousing1 as the fall 2024 semester begins! #newvols
Andy Busch, associate director of the Institute of American Civics
Просмотров 34Месяц назад
Our election expert, Andy Busch, associate director of the Institute of American Civics and professor, examines the historical significance of President Biden's decision and what to look for as the race moves forward.
The role of the Institute of American Civics at the Baker School of Public Policy & Public Affairs
Просмотров 28Месяц назад
Bill Lyons and Josh Dunn discuss the Institute of American Civics' role in educating students at the University of Tennessee and state residents to improve civic health.
Boon and Scott Embark on Prestigious Summer Internships
Просмотров 1933 месяца назад
Baker School graduate assistants Aom Boon and Jackson Scott have leveraged their education and experience to land prestigious summer internships in public affairs. Boon, who has worked with our Center for National Security and Foreign Affairs, is using her research experience as an intern for the East-West Center in Washington, D.C. Originally from Thailand, she is interested in U.S. policy pri...
The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America
Просмотров 13 тыс.4 месяца назад
The Institute of American Civics welcomed Hyrum Lewis, Brigham Young University-Idaho, and Verlan Lewis, Utah Valley University, as part of the Civic Leadership Lecture Series. They visited students and spoke about "The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America." In this lecture, Lewises discussed how, contrary to popular and scholarly belief, there are no du...
Is The American Dream Dying: The Civic Leadership Lecture Series at the @UTBakerSchool
Просмотров 784 месяца назад
On March 21st, 2024, the Civic Leadership Lecture Series at the @UTBakerSchool's Institute of American Civics, cosponsored by the @Steamboat_Inst, hosted the debate: "Is the American Dream Dying?" Featuring two authors with opposing positions on the contemporary viability of the American dream. Featuring: Michael Strain, @AEI, and David Leonhardt, @NYTimes. Moderated by Kaylee McGhee White, @IWF.
Baker School of Public Policy & Public Affairs Dedication
Просмотров 1914 месяца назад
The @utbakerschool celebrated our transition from the Howard H. Baker Center to a school with a formal dedication and ribbon-cutting ceremony followed by a gala at the Press Room. We welcomed more than 50 former staffers of Senator Baker who came to Knoxville to join the celebration.
Baker School of Public Policy & Public Affairs
Просмотров 2054 месяца назад
The Baker School is the first and only school of its kind in Tennessee and we’ve designed it to be your second home on the state’s flagship campus.
Baker Living Learning Community
Просмотров 454 месяца назад
Meet Makayla and Heather. The first-year students were strangers, paired to live in Clement Hall. Listen as these roommates describe their experience in the Baker Living Learning Community. The Baker LLC provides first-year students interested in politics and public service with an instant community that will enrich their undergraduate experience. @UTKHousing LLC students live together in a uni...
UTK Torchbearer 2024, Jack Duncan
Просмотров 325 месяцев назад
Congratulations to Jack Duncan, from Cleveland, TN, who was named a #Torchbearer for the Class of 2024. He is a Baker Scholar studying math and economics. Jack’s exemplary leadership, dedication to solution-focused research, academic excellence, and commitment to helping other students are just some of the ways he embodies the Volunteer spirit. His impact on the UTK community and beyond has bee...
"The Truth Seeking Mission of the University"
Просмотров 936 месяцев назад
The Institute of American Civics welcomed Dr. Robert George from Princeton for the first Civic Leadership lecture at The Howard H. Baker Jr. School of Public Policy and Public Affairs. In his lecture, "The Truth Seeking Mission of the University," Dr. George discussed the vital importance of colleges and universities as sites of free and open discussion and the measures universities can take to...
2024 Youth in Government Capitol Conference
Просмотров 286 месяцев назад
Check out scenes from the first session of the 2024 Youth in Government Capitol Conference last week in Nashville. The @utbakerschool hosted keynote speaker Congressman Heath Shuler, and Dean Marianne Wanamaker served as moderator. The annual TN YMCA Center for Civic Engagement Youth in Government conference is the second largest organization of its kind in the country, giving students hands-on...
UT System announces Grand Challenge Grants
Просмотров 446 месяцев назад
Last week, more than 80 individuals from across the UT System, state government, and community organizations gathered to discuss collaborations in the Grand Challenge areas of advancing K-12 education, strengthening rural communities, and overcoming addiction. The UT Grand Challenge Grants were announced, with up to $5 million committed to community-tied projects and research.
A.B. Culvahouse honored at UT graduation
Просмотров 306 месяцев назад
Arthur “A. B.” Culvahouse Jr. addressed the University of Tennessee, Knoxville graduates on Friday, Dec. 15, 2023, as the keynote speaker and was awarded an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree from the @utbakerschool, in recognition of his work as a policy expert and public servant. For more than four decades, Culvahouse has played an important role at the intersection of law, government, ...
Explore what the Baker School has to offer
Просмотров 1477 месяцев назад
Explore what the Baker School has to offer
Energy and Environment Distinguished Lecture with Mike Boots
Просмотров 418 месяцев назад
Energy and Environment Distinguished Lecture with Mike Boots
An evening with Dr. Russ Wigginton, president of the National Civil Rights Museum
Просмотров 609 месяцев назад
An evening with Dr. Russ Wigginton, president of the National Civil Rights Museum
Ashe Lecture Series On Ukraine the Pro Western Actor in Eastern Europe with Amb Marek Ziolkowski
Просмотров 2449 месяцев назад
Ashe Lecture Series On Ukraine the Pro Western Actor in Eastern Europe with Amb Marek Ziolkowski
Democracy advocate Danielle Allen visits the @UTBakerSchool @UniversityTennessee
Просмотров 299 месяцев назад
Democracy advocate Danielle Allen visits the @UTBakerSchool @UniversityTennessee
Charles Sims named inaugural TVA Distinguished Professor of Energy & Environmental Public Policy
Просмотров 409 месяцев назад
Charles Sims named inaugural TVA Distinguished Professor of Energy & Environmental Public Policy
IAC Board of Fellows member Arthur Brooks shares #Happiness with @UTKnoxville campus.
Просмотров 239 месяцев назад
IAC Board of Fellows member Arthur Brooks shares #Happiness with @UTKnoxville campus.
Public Square: Land Use Policy, the Missing Middle, and Knoxville’s Housing Challenge
Просмотров 3111 месяцев назад
Public Square: Land Use Policy, the Missing Middle, and Knoxville’s Housing Challenge
Baker School of Public Policy & Public Affairs launches at the University of Tennessee
Просмотров 680Год назад
Baker School of Public Policy & Public Affairs launches at the University of Tennessee
Dr. Marianne Wanamaker interviews Dr. Michele Moody Adams
Просмотров 97Год назад
Dr. Marianne Wanamaker interviews Dr. Michele Moody Adams
The U.S.-Japan Security Alliance and Economic Relations at Work in Tennessee
Просмотров 68Год назад
The U.S.-Japan Security Alliance and Economic Relations at Work in Tennessee
This topic feels a bit like splitting hairs. It's just plain easy to say I lean left or right. What's so unfortunate is that in recent times, we've brewed up this hostility toward one side or the other. It wasn't so long ago that President Reagan (R) and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil (D), engaged in some pretty hot debates with each other - then they'd go have dinner together. They liked and respected one another. They understood the need for checks and balances. They weren't threatened by an opposing viewpoint. In short - they were adults. What we have today in Congress are a lot of unruly children who all want their own way, and they throw tantrums if they can't get it. Politicians, such as they are by necessity - used to be more educated, open-minded, intellectual, and mindful of who they serve. They understood that compromise was a part of the deal; and they didn't fear having their agenda modified to fit the greater good. Yes, they fought for it, but when they had to give a little to get things done, they accepted it. Humility, character, and class are qualities we don't see much of anymore; not only in Congress, but in the electorate too. We're placing our own selfish desires far ahead of our practical sensibilities. Sounds like your typical teenager, right?
And the rwo idiots that went out of their way to block the camera
Great talk, as said. But at the end, when they start talking about the differences between two-party systems and multi-party systems, they're clearly stepping out of their area of expertise and showing that typical American ignorance (even there in academia) of the world outside of the US. They mention the UK having a three-party system and coalition governments - that's happened once since WWII.
And I think, when a world war has not been happening, three times in the country's entire history.
If you want a really informed comparison between two-party and multi-party systems, Arend Lijphart is probably the guy to go to, and I can specifically recommend his book Patterns of Democracy.
Yeah, some really important points here, I think. Even if their account should be complemented with the work of people like Jonathan Haidt and George Lakoff. I mean, for instance, there are literally conservative dispositions and literally progressive dispositions out there and the clash between those dispositions is and always has been a big part of political life. Though a) the clash can be healthy or unhealthy, and b) what people of both dispositions actually want depends very much on what the status quo is - so, for example, people of a conservative disposition in the latters years of the Soviet Union wanted to preserve old school communist ways of doing things, and people of progressive dispositions wanted to welcome in market incentives and so on.
Great stuff! Joe Nashville
Who came from Leo Gura ?
Yep
Same
Eh?
This is a great talk and valuable information despite issues I might have with their ideas. "The Myth of Left and Right" seems to be a social or sociopolitical look at the political one-dimension of left v right, but is sorely lacking any material analysis. Here's what I mean- when they discuss where the false concept of "left v right" started, it seems almost a priori and emergent. This false dualism starts in the 20s, takes off in the 60s, and is normal discourse now, because humans are inherently tribal and inherently wanting of simple answers. That's the explanation they give. And it benefits the 2 political parties as they can just provide tribal rhetoric to agitate their political bases. Is there any discussion on the role of power and profit here? I can think of some movements that were outside of the mainstream D vs R, left v right political divide: the Black Panther movement, the anti-globalist movement of the 90s, the 99% movements after the 2008 crash, the current ongoing attempts to stop cop cities and defend the forests, anything Indigenous people try to do (yes they're still fighting for rights and freedoms in this day and age). Can you think of a trend with all these? They've been crushed, co-opted, and outright killed for their challenge to power. Also-reality check, universal voting power has only been granted to all U.S citizens with the passing of the civil rights act in the 60s... so less than 100 years. The U.S has been a settler colonial slave state for far longer than it has been a bastion of liberal democracy. When the enslaved Africans in Haiti won their liberation from the slavers, the leadership in the U.S had a heart attack. All this to say- the 100ish year discussion of left v right is certainly a red herring. I would also contend it's actively being used by the moneyed interests to keep their power entrenched- not some emergent phenomenon of human tribalism. When Reagan loosened regulations on newscasting and right wing think tanks pumped millions of $$ to make Fox news in the 80s-90s, was that just some symptom of peoples' needs for simple explanations? We know social media companies explicitly show enraging content to its users to drive higher engagement and this has been the case for at least 10 years... but we blame human tribalism and not the billions of dollars specifically generated from creating such divides as L v R? Is "tribalism" really something that we just naturally do, and have to "civilize" ourselves away from? Or are there interests in power whose existence specifically relies on us being as diverted, scattered, and chaotic as possible? Do you think big oil would have a chance if the average person could actually foment political change?
years ago you liked or disliked a policy and you liked or liked or disliked somone becouse they supported that policy you we start of hating the person and then hating the purely becouse there adocating them
LIES! RICH, ruling class capitalist oligarchic lies! You know who really benefits from obscuring the fact that the traditional left-right spectrum is real? The owning class CAPITALIST people … the ultra-rich, ruling class, ownership class, ideological capitalist class, the top 1% of the asset owners and wealth holders and their enablers of the top 5% of the economic wealth curve … those whose wealth is wedded to their ideological hyper-commitment to CAPITALISM … that’s who wants you to question the material reality of the “left versus right” political spectrum. The rich capitalist wants to lie to you and convince you “there’s no reality to this left-versus-right spectrum and the political division that we create with it.” And tricky liars like these men here will gladly take a few crumbs from the rich to lie to their fellow working class citizens that there’s no such thing as “left versus right” and that really there’s no consistent objective way to sort citizens and their values or political interests into a two dimensional system. Except there is. In a capitalist society there is the wealthy capitalist class … those who own the assets, the businesses, the corporations, the banks, the “means of production”, factories, offices, equipment, infrastructure, rights for resource extraction, land, etc. and use this private ownership (either direct or via shares of stock) to do two things: hire laborers to do the work using all the things he owns and use the “rights of ownership” to extract surplus economic value from the laborers and keep this surplus for himself as profit. Critically the capitalist does not work in order to live and pay for his housing, food, clothing, consumer goods and other things … he uses the profit generated by the labor of others to do this. The rich ownership capitalist DOES NOT WORK. He owns, and because of his legal right to own he uses the profit extracted from the WORK OF OTHERS to pay for his life. This is contrasted to the LABORER, the wage earner, the paycheck cashing citizen, the small entrepreneur who works for himself and might even have a few employees, the modern-day gig worker of most kinds. This is the vast majority of us citizens. We own little or nothing of lasting value ( In the mid-to late-20th century the “American Dream” included every working class, lower 95% family or person who supplied just 20 to 40 years of full-time labor of even the lowest paying sort to the capitalists would expect to afford owning a middle class house and the small piece of land around it … the capitalists took that part of the dream away between about 1990 and 2010 so they could keep that as more profit for themselves … homeownership is now off the table for all but the highest paid wage-earning laborers … a vanishingly small percentage) and most of us have little or no savings. (Until the late 20th century full-time laboring people lived off their savings … months or even a year or two of their saved wages … and we paid with cash or a check from our savings … that too is a thing of the past. The capitalists wanted these savings as profit for themselves and invented consumer credit cards … debt owed to a rich capitalists’ bank … to replace savings owned and controlled by the laborers.). These people … us … are the 95% of the citizens who do ALL the productive work in society and to our economic system. Whether we can see it easily or not, we all work FOR the rich capitalist ownership class of people who are extracting “surplus value” from our work and profiting from it and keeping this profit for themselves. The rich capitalists and liars like these paid-for intellectual shills and propagandists for the rich capitalists love for the rest of us … the hardworking laboring class … the lower 95% on the economic wealth curve … to listen to this video here and come away from it nodding our heads and thinking, “yes, it sure does seem like so many of the ‘cultural issues’ that divide us are impermanent, and shifting, and temporary, so why don’t we stop analyzing our society in terms of “left versus right’ because it does us social and ‘intellectual harm’ and keeps us divided and maybe it’s all an illusion anyway?” Then their work would be done hiding the fact that their is a very real, measurable, material and economic significance to the “left versus right” political debate and it comes down to our capitalist system of economics and the wealth accumulation and massive inequality that capitalism and our current laws encourages to grow. The rich ruling class economic conservatives (and their enablers and mouthpieces like these guys) would like to have the rest of us laborers in the lower 95% believe there is no reality between partisan, bipolar politics in the country, because this draws attention away from them, and their numerically tiny minority status in our democracy. The power laboring 95% has is with our numbers and the overwhelming power we can exert when we all push together in one direction. Or, in the case of “left versus right” politics, if we all collectively pull together and drag the power and the wealth of this great country back towards us again, back to where it belongs, so that the majority of Americans can begin readily enjoying far more of the benefits of all the labor we supply, instead of allowing the rich on the right to hoard more and more and more of it every year for themselves alone.
This is really superficial. Being “left” or “right” fundamentally comes down to something far more evolutionary than just mere shifts in attitudes. The personality and moral psychology research is really clear about this: the left is more egalitarian and the right is more hierarchical. You can trace this cross-culturally. You don’t need the labels to empirically see this pattern. They’re also totally leaving out Ancient Greece and Rome, where you have the Democrats and Oligarchs in Greece and the Optimates and Populares in Rome.
Age old story. Divide and conquer.
Hiram has 4 examples: 1) how watching Fox news forms your opinion (he mentions Fox in particular, not other outlet) 2) how knowing what Donald Trump thinks dictates how conservatives think, 3) How conservatives are “problematic” when they think in terms of left/right, and get letters from conservative organizations, and 4) again how watching Fox News prejudices your opinion. Seriously?? If Left/Right was brought in in the 1920s, it was by communists, as he says, and it was to divide us into groups. The issues themselves don’t matter-as he points out himself, they change drastically-just the division. That’s the real issue. -----I feel kind of stupid having accepted this dichotomy over the years too much, but Hiram is clearly still stuck thinking in these terms. Thinking of Fox news as the culprit shows tangibly that he has not come to understand that the machine is in charge, and he accepts Fox as the focus of his criticism rather than a useful vehicle for keeping people from understanding the machinery of propaganda that we have in this country.
The Communists were pro-civil rights AND pro-New Deal in the 20s/30s. They were outside the duopoly up until the eve of World War II. Unlike the Jim Crow fascists, they worked to unite the country across race and nationality.
With that said, I agree they have a liberal, anti-Trump bias in this presentation. BUT Fox News does deserve blame for pushing openly partisan news programming. In the 1980s, the news media was largely pro-Reagan, and William F. Buckley had a PBS show alongside liberal stuff.
@@garrettramirez428 The point is not the substance of what he said but that he purports to transcend left and right, yet all his examples are about the misdeeds of the right. This happens over and over with left-leaning people--they think that what they think is manifest and, quiet often, gnostic truth and simply cannot see it any other way. If they do choose to talk about a foible from their side, it is always very minor and forgivable, even cute, whereas anything they cite from the right is ill-intentioned and pernicious.
How to turn 200 words into 20,000.
He's wrong. It's our plurality-based election system ONLY that drives this mad quest for control over POWER. It incentivizes bad behavior, and thus duopoly devolves in time even further into the uni-party: incumbents versus everyone else. Incumbents don't want to DO any work; so they don't even give their own faction's powerbase the things they want, EVEN when they control the entire government. It's not because humans are so stupid that we see politics through a mono-dimensional lens. It's because the interests of smaller groups MUST be flattened by the reward structure of our bad plurality-based election methods. 2-party politics will end when we institute range-score voting and shortest-split-line districting to eliminate gerrymandering, impose maximum income & wealth limits.
I am what most people call a conservative, actually a classical liberal. I loath Donald Trump, and I would vote for any reasonable alternative. But there is no reasonable alternative that can win. Trump is no conservative. Voting for Trump is cutting my arm off, voting for Biden is cutting my head off. I will not vote anyway since in Illinois the fix is in.
Propaganda dressed up as intellectualism 😂
---------- How Dual Brain Psychology Affects Our Politics. . Most of us experience complete dominance, meaning that one hemisphere or the other completely dominates our brain’s contribution to consciousness. Complete dominance divides us into two distinct groups, creating the basis of polarization. . By comprehending the split-brain’s influence on our perspective and response we learn what is dividing us and with this are able to create a mental roadmap to end our divisions. Our tendency is to want to educate those on the other side of the argument, but in most cases, others feel the same way about us. . Thus, if you find yourself on one side or the other, know that you are part of the problem.
NO! Science disproved the hippy-dippy star-child nonsense of "hemi-spherism" many decades ago!
People should be hesitant in pushing for change. Rather than using bad to determine what needs changing we should use broken, dysfunctional, or obsolete Something you view as bad you should take a 2nd look at from the perspective of what about it works? How much worse off would we be if it didn't work at all. Who would be in pain if it stopped working? What would be the difference between what you would consider good vs it's current state. Who would be better off? Would anyone be worse off? Change will always cause some one pain To replace an old system with a new one. You're removing the organic that had gone through trial and error over time to becomei increasingly fit to all needs & maximally fine tuned
Andrea needs to retire she can't speak and is having a difficult time getting her words out. Whe is full if shit anyway. So pathetic the anchors on MSNBC are they hate Trump so much and they couldnt even explain why if you forced them to give you a real reason. Not a lie that they pedal, but an actual reason.
But then you have 'the status quo' which is just right of center on this spectrum. Isn't the argument over a spectrum within a spectrum, as in maintaining the status quo? A moderate would look like an extremist to the status quo
Ranked Choice Voting, is the key to bringing about a true multi-party political system where you need to form coalitions with other parties to get things done instead of everyone either being in your party or the dreaded, evil, other party. It is part of The American Anti-Corruption Act.
This is an attitude that I live by, and I think the world would be a much better place if everyone adopted it: "If what you say is actually true, I would want to know it too. It's not that I have this bias from the onset and you'll never convince me and I'll never convince you, no that's wrong. You can convince me, and if it is true I want you to convince me ... and I will thank you for convincing me." Aron Ra
Maybe we should have an up & down metaphor. Middle class interests vs élite Or in vs out
This is commercialized, “Both siding it” or “enlightened centrism.” additionally, nowhere are these historians contending with the veracity of these participants' claims or feelings based on an objective standard.
Unfortunately they are doubling down on this. It’s a sort of denial by radicals to assuage people who have to live with their agenda. It’s Kyrsten Sinema’s mother ship.
This is basically paid propaganda … Probably applies to America only After all , there are Marxists ( left ) and fascists ( right ) But a fascist and a Marxist could agree that education is important. Or women should have rights . Racism is always a right wing issue . In America , right vs left can be defined based on anti or pro black That never changes in America
By that logic, the part about race in American politics specifically, arch-conservative leaders like Roscoe Conkling, Henry Cabot Lodge and Robert A. Taft were all actually left-wingers. Conkling both co-drafted the fourteenth amendment and first articulated the ever controversial corporations are people argument as a lawyer in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. The Lodge Bill of 1890 and Taft Proposal of 1946 were some of the most sweeping attempts to defend civil rights for African Americans, but their namesakes were also quite famously perhaps the chief opponents of the League of Nations and New Deal respectively respectively which were considered the great liberal projects of those periods. Meanwhile, the main founders of the Progressive Movement proper who contributed to the widely influential Wisconsin Idea including Richard T. Ely, John R. Commons and Edward A. Ross would conversely have to each be considered right-wingers due to their beliefs in scientific racism which informed proscriptions on such issues as immigration, segregation and redlining.
The US elections system usually works on a winner-take-all system, and that enforced a two-party system. And if you can only have two real parties, then you must have a dualist spectrum. If we could close our own basket of goods and our vote would count, Left-Right politics would disappear.
This guy should listen to Matt Christman sometime
No one thinks left/right is about change. Being on the left has always been understood to mean favoring people who are perceived as disempowered, disadvantaged, or both; being somewhat to the right means being nominally neutral (which amounts to favoring the oppressor); and being definitely on the right means believing that order should actively be created or maintained. Insofar as people focus on existing hierarchies, being on the left correlates with favoring change. In the last few decades, though, past attempts to mitigate disadvantage have been eroding, so being on the left has meant trying to protect the surviving remnants of programs from the New Deal and Great Society eras. Socially, being on the left meant trying to uphold case law including Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas; as well as trying to uphold the very concept of rights as something that applies to everyone (including the disadvantaged), in contrast to privileges that come from rank, wealth, or conformity. In more optimistic times, fools imagined that the arc of history would bend toward justice. So it was assumed that favoring justice would usually mean speeding up change. But justice was always the core of the left/right concept, and change was only ever a correlate. Different people have different ideas about what advantages or disadvantages are most important. People supposedly acting in the name of the disadvantaged have often been self-serving. Different rationalizations for opposing justice have been prominent at different times. So there's some variation. But the core of the left/right distinction has always been some variant of justice versus some excuse for injustice. Meanwhile, no one has ever said that politics is only about left versus right. Sectional, religious, and ethnic concerns have always been present. Even different actual beliefs about what's efficient and effective have occasionally made it through the noise. But left/right has always been one thread in politics, and it has become more prominent since the interstate highway system diluted the effects of regionalism, and since the advent of mass communication (culminating in the era of three-network television) diluted some of the cultural distinctions.
For countries which do not even have a two-party system, a superimposition (or worse a mindless or even worse, a scheming import) of this (to use the word of Lewises) "myth" is, imo, at least one order higher absurdness because, unlike citizens of such countries, Americans have to--whether they like it or not--pick from only two choices.
To understand why the GOP refuses to work with Democrats, you have to understand the political philosophy of Carl Schmitt. While "The Concept of the Political" is incredibly stupid, it's also incredibly divisive. The GOP adopted this "friend or foe" concept in 1995 and have vowed ever since to stop co-operating and just oppose governance. The goal is the destruction of the Constitution.
Hey looks you got: Biden : Cultist Liberal Racist Trump: Cultist Conservative Racist Label and picking two sides of a pea, + shallow diversity is the goal of western democracy. Enjoy it.
The people don't have this monist conception of politics. The establishment media has it, because it is easy, and because they have no incentive to think any harder than they have to when producing content. It is so much easier to simply parrot the Democratic party narrative of the moment.
Neither left or right is basically right to paraphrase Marx.
in other words the superficial analysis appeals to right wingers probably.
I have a related idea... I call it political GPS. A way to avoid spin. Really how do you know where you even are? I talked to a guy so spun around that he said that Hitler was a socialist and therefore everyone on the left is evil and everyone on the right is good. He had no idea where he was. I keep with the most fundamental questions of government. 1) How many people is power divided among? 2) how many rules do we need? You’ll notice corps have their own special treatment here in America. 3) How do we split up the money? Every form of government answer these questions and the governments that answer these questions similarly also share a similar set of problems. All of the sudden you see the problems of different forms and you know where you are and more importantly can steer away from bad leaders and ideas because you can see the problem ahead. It’s also educational with a natural bias towards the center. It is pretty simple to talk about how if one person is in charge of all the power then if you have a bad leader then everything is bad in your country. Whereas if everyone has power to vote on every issue then debate is impossible to hear everyone out on that issue, you might as well just vote without debate. People now don’t even vote every 4 years. Both extreme positions are problematic. Too many rules is a police state too few rules is effectively anarchy. If one person has all the money then money is meaningless and capitalism crashes. On the other side if everyone make exactly the same money then you have communism and the poverty of everyone. It’s instructive to talk in terms people understand not in the doublespeak of politicians. “Supporting democracy” to a republican may sound like a bad thing if your opposition is named Democrats. “Rule by the people” sounds like something everyone can get behind.
Absolute trash. Left is always towards equality, and right is always towards hierarchy. A person can be left on one issue and right on another. No problem. The bolshevics were towards equality (left), but using authoritarian means to get it (right). Lenin even talked shit about people he called "ultra-leftists," who thought they could achieve socialism without the authoritarian methods that he supported. This video would have made perfect sense if it was about democrats and republicans because those titles dont really mean anything. The democrat party is not a leftist party. My explanation of this is not controversial. It is the normal explanation in political science. The explanations they use in this video are strawmen. If you think you have an issue that de-bunks my simple explanation, let me know and ill explain.
Of course, there is truth within this approach, and I have a lot of sympathy for it, but its problem is the attempt to ahistorisize politics. Take an example given about the linking of anti-abortion and low taxes. Of course, it is correct that it is possible to find ppl who don't agree with one thing or the other, but will cast their vote for Republican party to codify one of those issues, but what they seem to leave out is how those issues ended up under the same political banner.
Someone should download and edit and remove the 60Hz hum. Somehow I missed it the first time.
Presenters boring, impressed w themselves and redundant. title should read "Low T nerds explain politics"
It all started with the French
Where does the constitution fit in here, ie freedom of speech?. Pro constitution, anti constitution…. But you certainly make a case for a third party and mor choice on the ballot.
This speaker is heavy on sophistry, misstating political science facts, and sounds like a religious creationist video. The straw-man framing & overall dishonesty is gross, such as In reality the Left direction indicates an increased preference for egalitarianism, while Right indicates preference for hierarchy.
Conservatives are reactionaries. Liberals are centrists.
Liberals and conservatives are both right of centre. What we’ve experienced over decades is the neo-neo debate. Neo-conservatism versus neo-liberalism. By contrast, the political left, at its core is concerned with anti-capitalism.
Wrong. The political “left”, per the origins of left/right orientations in the French Revolution are those who sit “to the left of the king”. They are characterized by a desire for revolution; an overturning of the established status quo (economic, social, political and even spiritual).
@@m0ckingB1rd42 That’s what I said. Although arguably the political orientations of the 17th-19th Centuries may not be as applicable in the 21st Century. For example Eco-Socialists and Eco-Fascists have shared opponents in Libertarians, Liberals, and Techno-Optimists. Yet Social Democrats, Bio-Conservatives and Greens have more in common with each other than with any of the others.
History & culture aside for a moment; On my side of the pond, a more current description could be ‘societal values’ vs ‘individuals’ values’. This bridges some of the typical “anger”, and none is “wrong” vs each other. In a ‘developed’ society (unless one posits there isn’t one…), both value sets coexist. This should not be a question of ‘state’ vs ‘individual’, as both far right and far left leaders have weaponised ‘the state’ against its citizens. State communism and corporate power fascism share more traits than what separates them - for ordinary people. The opposite would rather be _anarchy_ which also exists as an idea on both fringes. Socialism as an ideology (caveats for its practice) reveals its etymology, the word ‘social’. After all, we are “social creatures”? Ponder that as a value - before thinking politics…👍
Otra cosa que estos señores ignoran es que la "relatividad" de los dos polos concierne a las posiciones moderadas, no a las extremas y violentas.
Estos señores olvidan la faz agónica de la política, su lado de lucha y conflicto. El marxismo es izquierda, y condena como derecha todo lo que no sea marxismo. Esto sucede en Sudamérica porque la derecha tiene mala prensa. Además la extrema izquierda cuenta con la invaluable ayuda de la Iglesia Católica. La metáfora de la "medicina" que estos señores usan es totalmente equivocada.
Yo creo, por el contrario, que la negación de la diferencia de izquierda u derecha favorece mucho al marxismo, es decir, a la extrema izquierda.
We have left or right. The rulers have left and right. Can't fight Mike Tyson with one fist.
I think the idea is that the left generally tracks the interests of labor and the right tracks the interests of capital. To go beyond left and right you'd have to understand that policies that are good for some are bad for others. For that reason extremes in politics are generally bad. The best approach would be to have a system that can find balance between the stakeholders.
This is assuming that labor vs capital is the only one vector that exists in politics. Though that could be the vector of central importance in a number of people’s politics it doesn’t have to be the only one.
@@januarysson5633 agree. Politics have many vectors. Other vectors include ideologies, religion, ethnic identities, professions. Each individual has multiple "identities" and "divided loyalties"(with an internal hierarchal order of importance). And there is the emotional/irrational in every individual's political inclination and behaviour. The latter is often dismissed in any "political theory".
I don't know, man. Anti-abortion and tax cuts map pretty well onto basic rights and responsibilities of the individual. No doubt lots of people are in it because of Social factors, but acting like there's no philosophical basis for these ideas is pretty suspect.
If you’re saying that being anti-abortion automatically selects for a position in favor of tax cuts, I don’t agree. Someone could be anti-abortion but in favor of higher taxes because they would acknowledge the need for more social services in a population that was rising due to abortion not being available. It may not be the position most anti-abortion believers take but it is not logically inconsistent. It is actually consistent with Catholic social teaching. It is not logically necessary that someone being anti-abortion be pro-tax hikes if that is the opposite case. That is actually the paired position of most people on the left.
Western society is a liberal society. There is a left and right wing of this society. The left by it's nature constantly pulls farther forward while the right acts as a brake of sort.
But if it’s true as the speakers said that left and right sometimes change positions then who’s the gas pedal and who’s the brake.
@@januarysson5633 The political parties have changed positions for sure, but left and right is always left and right. The Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln was a progressive leftist party. Left is progressive in our society regardless of the party that is left at the time. The “right” always acts as a slowdown mechanism.
ps. Ranked choice voting of some form might eliminate the pitfalls of a multi-party system and build coalition. If you need minimum 50%, you have to build consensus.
Or, broaden the choices all the way by leaving decisions in the hands of the individuals. Why channel decision making into government hands at all?
@@The430philosopher Because people are as easily stampeded as sheep? "...were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other law-giver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others." Thomas Paine
@@paineite "Because people are as easily stampeded as sheep." Exactly why we should put as little power into collective hands as possible. People are still going to gather into factions, but without state power they can be balanced by other factions. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." People are fighting for control of the levers of power. Disperse the power.