In keeping with Thucy's rule about commenting only on the article (just kidding), the only way we're ever going to have a battle for the center rather than the extremes is if the United States government drops its two party conspiracy and stops swapping power every four years. Unfortunately, we ask the United States government to rid itself of its own power, and sorry, not even our awesome democratic horrible laughable government would do that...

Well, as long as you guys are discussing what my views and intentions in posting this were, let me spell them out:

I thought this would be interesting to post here because:

1) The Economist is well-known and well-understood to lean right. It's like the American Enterprise Institute, or the WTO.

2) But the Economist has endorsed Barack Obama a second time (the first was hardly a shock - Bush's party was completely discredited). I was not surprised by this, as some suggest, but rather reminded of the fact that, given point #1, American politics is rather skewed.

This is related to the observation that the only significant group of people on the planet Earth who hope to see Romney become president live in America. (To clarify, since krellin or semck or someone might ask, no, I do not believe foreigners should be able to vote in US elections)

So I posted it here as a way of drawing everyone's attention to those facts and hopefully to elicit some discussion around these topics.

The point isn't so much who stipulated what as a standard of left-right, the point is that it should be obvious that international standards are the only standards that make any sense on an absolute level, until we colonize another planet or meet aliens I suppose.

"Thucy, your "I've been elsehwere in the world and now understand everything so much better than my provincial countrymen who are fools" thing is getting old. When do you turn 25?"

Really? What a cheap shot. It's insulting enough that I feel compelled to respond point by point.

1) I have not been everywhere in the world, not even close. I have visited a grand total of four countries including my native United States. I have spent a total of about six months of my entire life (21.5 years) abroad. So the idea that I am saying "I've been everywhere so I'm wise" is one I completely reject. Part of the reason I so badly want to travel more is to rid myself of this ignorance.

2) I do not understand everything better than my "provincial countrymen who are fools." There are two reasons why this insinuation about me is insulting: The first, I have learned much of what I know from *other Americans*, so the idea that I believe Americans are somehow uniquely stupid or ignorant is ridiculous. Instead, I believe all people are ignorant and stupid in equal proportions in every population worldwide. So America certainly does not lack it's fair share of idiots, but we are not especially idiotic, nor are we especially wise. The second, I feel that, as an American citizen myself, I am not in a very good moral or credible position to judge the international stature and standing of other countries. That is to say, it would be far ruder for me to say to a Chinese "the people of your country are ethnocentric" than it would be for me to say the same to an American. This is because I *am* an American, and because I love my country and wish for it to be an admirable place, I criticize it. Criticism is the first step to perfection.

3) That's correct, I am under the age of 25. I knew for a long time since joining this site when I was 16 that most of the users are older than that, and furthermore, that most older people look down on younger people as ignorant, naive, foolish, rude, uppity, or some combination of any of these. So I could have hidden my age all along, but I refused to do that. That's because for as long as I can remember I have bristled at the idea that someone's words or ideas should be judged on the basis of who is saying them, rather than the content of the words themselves. I want everyone to know everything about my identity to counter this. That is to say, if I say something smart, I want people to *know* it comes from a young foolish 21-year old, and not assume it comes from a 30 or 40 something.

So to that effect I say to you, rather than pointing out my age, why don't you address my argument? Which is to say, the American perspective is narrow and not as useful as an international perspective. This was always true, but is truer every year.

As long as we're stereotyping people based on something as superficial as their age, I can just as easily say that old people like you are crotchety assholes who are Americentric and outdated in their outlook, still living in this world as if it was 1980. I can just as easily say get with the times old man because rather than my opinion being that of a youngster who will grow out of it, it is rather that of the future and you will find yourself more and more alone in your "good old days" worldview.

But since I'm not an asshole like that I won't. I don't think those beliefs are correlated with age. I think plenty of people even younger than me have a narrow, nationally-focused mindset. But no, I won't shut up about putting things in an international perspective, because it is the only thing that really counts. The more international we can be in our perspective, the richer we will be for it.

To the points. The Economist is generally a neo-liberal pro-business pro-tolerance pro-intelligence publication. In most of the West they would lean right-ish. Because the margins of debate in the US are so narrow and continually moving right towards crazy land, they lean a little liberal.

The article basically says, eh, Obama is kind of a wimp when it comes to policy. He refuses to play hardball. But generally he is intelligent and pro-business and doing a decent job. We know he's not going to come out with any radical anti-business stuff because he's not a Leftist, but a corporate Centrist. Romney used to be a corporate Centrist as well, adn we'd love to support him, unfortunately he seems to have gone a little bats hit crazy while trying to pander to the bathshit crazy members of the Republican Party who want to drag us all the way to some sort of theocracy with indentured servitude.

I don't think endorsements matter one hill of beans at this point in the game, and I think Obama has it completely locked up, but it is quite true that I don't think there is anyone, even in America who likes Romney - he was liberal before he was conservative after all, and he stands to garner a strong anti-Obama vote and that's about it. Granted, that will be about 49% of the country....

Thucy,

Sorry you thought it was a low blow. Before addressing your main points, I should clarify I few things. I _don't_ disrespect the opinions of young people. I also participated in forums like these from a very young age. However, the particular proclivity I was pointing out does afflict the young more heavily, and sometimes passes later on, so now that you seemed to have acquired it, I was just wondering how long it would last. That was all. (This is distinct from saying that all young people suffer from it).

Now, on to your substance. You say,

"The point isn't so much who stipulated what as a standard of left-right, the point is that it should be obvious that international standards are the only standards that make any sense on an absolute level, until we colonize another planet or meet aliens I suppose."

Far from being "obvious," I consider this false. The only standards that make sense on an absolute level are which positions and policies are better and worse, more and less effective. If 95% of the world happens to be wrong about how government should work (perfectly conceivable, on any reading of history), it would be most unfortunate to change a correct or good view of how government should work just because the 95% disapproved of it.

To the narrow point that "liberal" and "conservative" have different meanings depending on context -- a point first mentioned by Draug in this thread -- yes, that's of course true.

To your points:

1) I did not say you had been everywhere in the world. I said "elsewhere" in the world.

2) It may be true that you think there are equal distributions of fools and wise people everywhere. However, that is decidedly inconsistent with what you've said in this thread. To wit:

"Aha, Draugnar seems to be confusing fiscal conservatives who actually know their shit with your average American conservative, who decidedly does not"

and also

"That's because US standards are off-base and out of touch."

Sorry, but if the average US conservative is a clueless hick (relative to the world), and the US is much more conservative than the rest of the world, then it follows as the night the day that you are saying the average American is a clueless hick compared to the rest of the world.

Backpedal all you want, but these statements are _classic_ specimens of the "I with my global perspective understand that Americans are clueless" mentality. Not ALL clueless, it's true -- nobody doubted that you realized there were other enlightened souls in your privileged academic enclave. But your statements betray great contempt for Americans as a whole.

It's not unusual, of course, to feel that the people who disagree with you politically are foolish or irrational. I dare say most people do, and there may often be a grain of truth in it. But an important step toward being able to relate and make progress is to understand the actual reasons that drive their positions, not write them off as irrelevant and ignorant. (The "average American conservative" is neither).

"So to that effect I say to you, rather than pointing out my age, why don't you address my argument? Which is to say, the American perspective is narrow and not as useful as an international perspective."

I've addressed most of it. Certainly understanding more of the world is always useful. But that's different than saying that if the rest of the world is wrong, we should still adjust to be like them because a majority are always right. And let there be no mistake: understanding policy right and coming to the right positions at home is much more important than understanding whether the rest of the world agrees or does things the same way. Both are very important, but one is a luxury compared to the other.


"As long as we're stereotyping people based on something as superficial as their age, I can just as easily say that old people like you are crotchety assholes who are Americentric and outdated in their outlook, still living in this world as if it was 1980."

lol. Nice. But again, I wasn't stereotyping you. I was just identifying the cure to a specific disease you have developed. As for the world in 1980, I wasn't even born yet. There was some great music then though.

So yes, you could respond to my specific criticism with stereotyping and insult. I would suggest self-examination instead, though.


"But no, I won't shut up about putting things in an international perspective, because it is the only thing that really counts."

The only thing that counts is doing the right thing -- not the popular thing. The rest is gravy.

("So yes, you could respond to my specific criticism with stereotyping and insult. I would suggest self-examination instead, though."

I was responding to your post paragraph by paragraph, and didn't notice till after I wrote this that you then went on NOT to stereotype, per se. I meant to delete this then-unprovoked retort, but forgot. Sorry).