Political Glossary

Political Glossary

For those still interested in the meaning of words in an Age of Trump.

Stolen in total from Wikipedia entries of the same name.

Democracy

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmoskrátos literally "rule of the people"), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament.[1] Democracy is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority".[2] Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes. The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy, which makes all forces struggle repeatedly for the realization of their interests, being the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules.[3] Western democracy, as distinct from that which existed in pre-modern societies, is generally considered to have originated in city states such as Classical Athens and the Roman Republic, where various schemes and degrees of enfranchisement of the free male population were observed before the form disappeared in the West at the beginning of late antiquity. The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.

According to political scientist Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key elements: (a) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; (b) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; (c) Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and (d) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.[4]

Republicanism

Republicanism is an ideology of being a citizen in a state as a republic under which the people hold popular sovereignty.

Anti-monarchism: Criticism of monarchy can be targeted against the general form of government—monarchy—or more specifically, to particular monarchical governments as controlled by hereditary royal families.

Popular sovereignty: Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people's rule, is the principle that the authority of a state and its government is created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected representatives (Rule by the People), who are the source of all political power. It is closely associated with social contract philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Popular sovereignty expresses a concept and does not necessarily reflect or describe a political reality.[a] The people have the final say in government decisions. Benjamin Franklin expressed the concept when he wrote, "In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns".[1]

Republic: A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" – not the private concern or property of the rulers – and where offices of state are elected or appointed, rather than inherited. It is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[1][2][3]

In American English, the definition of a republic can also refer specifically to a government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body, known elsewhere as a representative democracy (a democratic republic),[4] and exercise power according to the rule of law (a constitutional republic).[5][6][2]

Res publica: Res publica is a Latin phrase, loosely meaning 'public affair'. It is the root of the word 'republic', and the word 'commonwealth' has traditionally been used as a synonym for it; however translations vary widely according to the context. 'Res' is a nominative singular Latin noun for a substantive or concrete thing – as opposed to 'spes', which means something unreal or ethereal – and 'publica' is an attributive adjective meaning 'of and/or pertaining to the state or the public'. Hence a literal translation is, 'the public thing/affair'.[1]

Social contract: In both moral and political philosophy, the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory. The term takes its name from The Social Contract (Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique), a 1762 book by Jean-Jacques Rousseau that discussed this concept.

Although the antecedents of social contract theory are found in antiquity, in Greek and Stoic philosophy and Roman and Canon Law, the heyday of the social contract was the mid-17th to early 19th centuries, when it emerged as the leading doctrine of political legitimacy. The starting point for most social contract theories is an examination of the human condition absent any political order that Thomas Hobbes termed the "state of nature".[2] In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate, in different ways, why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up their natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.

Civic virtue

Civic virtue is the cultivation of habits of personal living that are claimed to be important for the success of the community. Closely linked to the concept of citizenship, civic virtue is often conceived as the dedication of citizens to the common welfare of their community even at the cost of their individual interests. The identification of the character traits that constitute civic virtue has been a major concern of political philosophy. The term civility refers to behavior between persons and groups that conforms to a social mode (that is, in accordance with the civil society), as itself being a foundational principle of society and law.

Federalism

Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under the Constitution of 1787, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established.[1] It can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status.[2]

Federalism differs from confederalism, in which the general level of government is subordinate to the regional level, and from devolution within a unitary state, in which the regional level of government is subordinate to the general level.[3] It represents the central form in the pathway of regional integration or separation,[4] bounded on the less integrated side by confederalism and on the more integrated side by devolution within a unitary state.[5]

Liberalism

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.

Conservatism

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. By some definitions, conservatives have variously sought to preserve institutions including religion, monarchy, parliamentary government, property rights and the social hierarchy, emphasizing stability and continuity, while the more extreme elements called reactionaries oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".[1][2] The first established use of the term in a political context originated with François-René de Chateaubriand in 1818,[3] during the period of Bourbon restoration that sought to roll back the policies of the French Revolution. The term, historically associated with right-wing politics, has since been used to describe a wide range of views.

There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus conservatives from different parts of the world—each upholding their respective traditions—may disagree on a wide range of issues. Edmund Burke, an 18th-century politician who opposed the French Revolution but supported the American Revolution, is credited as one of the main theorists of conservatism in Great Britain in the 1790s.[4] According to Quintin Hogg, the chairman of the British Conservative Party in 1959, "Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself".[5] In contrast to the tradition-based definition of conservatism, political theorists such as Corey Robin define conservatism primarily in terms of a general defense of social and economic inequality. From this perspective conservatism is less an attempt to uphold traditional institutions and more "a meditation on—and theoretical rendition of—the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back."[6][7]

Progressivism

Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of social reform.[1] As a philosophy, it is based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from uncivilized conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[2] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread across the world from Europe.[2] The meanings of progressivism have varied over time and from different perspectives. The contemporary common political conception of progressivism in the culture of the Western world emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor; minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with monopolistic corporations; and intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, thus claiming that measures were needed to address these problems.[3]

Left-wing politics

Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.[1][2][3][page needed][4] It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others (prioritarianism), as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished (by advocating for social justice).[1] The term left wing can also refer to "the radical, reforming, or socialist section of a political party or system".[5]

*   *   *

According to author Barry Clark, "Leftists [...] claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated."[16]

Right-wing politics

Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.[4](p693, 721)[5][6][7][8][9][page needed] Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences[10][11] or the competition in market economies.[12][13] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system."[14]

*   *   *

From the 1830s to the 1880s, there was a shift in the Western world of social class structure and the economy, moving away from nobility and aristocracy towards capitalism.[22] This general economic shift toward capitalism affected centre right movements such as the British Conservative Party, which responded by becoming supportive of capitalism.[23] In the United States, the Right includes both economic and social conservatives.[24] In Europe, economic conservatives are usually considered liberal, and the Right includes nationalists, nativist opposition to immigration, religious conservatives, and historically a significant presence of right-wing movements with anti-capitalist sentiments including conservatives and fascists who opposed what they saw as the selfishness and excessive materialism inherent in contemporary capitalism.[25][26]

Precursors of the Alt-Right: What Constitutes a Nation? 1

Important: See #FMA (For Mature Audiences) #Alt_Right

Introduction

“English only!”

Drives me nuts. Drives others on varying degrees of the political middle and left nuts.

But it’s an echo of what Johann Gottlieb Fichte said to his fellow Germans living under the cultural, political, and - with Napoleon - military occupation at the beginning of the 19th century.

It also has echoes of the Maccabees, the devout Jews who faced torture and death under the Seleucids as the successors to Alexander the Great tried to force them to give up the (in their minds, anyway) the God-revealed cultural identity that made them a people obedient to God’s Torah for a homogeneous, empire-unifying Hellenistic culture.

Now… play nice and have fun. :-)

What Constitutes a Nation? (Contemporary)

This manifesto remains the only attempt to date by GRECE, the primary New Right organization in France, to summarize its principles and key concepts. It was written in 1999 by Alain de Benoist, GRECE’s founder, and Charles Champetier on the occasion of GRECE’s thirtieth anniversary. It offers a strong argument in favor of the right to difference among cultures and civilizations, and the right of peoples to defend themselves from cultural homogenization. It also offers a vision of a regenerated Europe which will find its strength in a return to its authentic values and traditions, in opposition to the new imperialism of multiculturalism and the global marketplace. Alain de Benoist (b. 1943) is the primary philosopher of the European ‘New Right’ movement. He attended the Sorbonne, studying law, philosophy and religion. He is the author of dozens of books, including The Problem of Democracy and Beyond Human Rights, published in English translation by Arktos, and gives frequent lectures around the world. He lives in Paris. Charles Champetier (b. 1968) is the former editor of Éléments, one of GRECE’s periodicals. He continues to write on subjects related to the New Right.

Manifesto for a European Renaissance

Author: Alain de Benoist (1999)

What Constitutes a Nation? (19th Century)

Romantic nationalism (also national romanticism, organic nationalism, identity nationalism) is the form of nationalism in which the state derives its political legitimacy as an organic consequence of the unity of those it governs. This includes, depending on the particular manner of practice, the language, race, culture, religion, and customs of the "nation" in its primal sense of those who were born within its culture. This form of nationalism arose in reaction to dynastic or imperial hegemony, which assessed the legitimacy of the state from the top down, emanating from a monarch or other authority, which justified its existence. Such downward-radiating power might ultimately derive from a god or gods (see the divine right of kings and the Mandate of Heaven).

Romantic nationalism 1775 - 1825

Fichte made important contributions to political nationalism in Germany. In his Addresses to the German Nation (1808), a series of speeches delivered in Berlin under French occupation, he urged the German peoples to "have character and be German" — entailed in his idea of Germanness was antisemitism, since he argued that "making Jews free German citizens would hurt the German nation."[56] Fichte answered the call of Freiherr vom Stein, who attempted to develop the patriotism necessary to resist the French specifically among the "educated and cultural elites of the kingdom." Fichte located Germanness in the supposed continuity of the German language, and based it on Tacitus, who had hailed German virtues in Germania and celebrated the heroism of Arminius in his Annales.[57]

Johann Gottlieb Fichte May 19, 1762 – January 27, 1814

Precursors of the Alt-Right: Individualism vs. Cultural Community 1

Important: See #FMA (For Mature Audiences) #Alt_Right

Introduction

Ever since the election of Trump, I've worked to try to understand how about 1/3 of my fellow Americans can support him and think he's doing a good job and especially try to understand an Alt-Right movement that sounds to my untutored ears like fascism with a public relations firm.

And in many cases it is fascism  with a public relations firm - but as I delve into this on my authority as a seminary-trained amateur, I'm finding that the Alt-Right has deep historical roots in European history (including, to continue the metaphor, the branch that became white supremecy and / or fascism), particularly as aspects of the Romantic revolt against Enlightenment values of individual rights and freedom, materialism, and what they considered the sterility of rationalism and empiricism as "ways of knowing."

Instead of writing one, massive, well-documented opus - mostly because that is now and possibly forever beyond my ability - I've decided to eat this elephant one bite at a time, posting content from contemporary Alt-Right sources (that will not all agree with each other let alone with Enlightenment liberalism) alongside what I deem relevant historical content from Wikipedia - for whatever that might be worth as a source.

Then, I welcome feedback, either on Facebook or here. I believe I've set comments to forward to my bill.bekkenhuis@gmail.com address.

So here goes...

Individualism vs Cultural Community (Contemporary)

History, literature, religion and philosophy tell us who we are, not because of some grand unifying universal principle, but because they place us within the bounds of a heritage, a nation, a people. In the 1840s the concept of the “Russian Soul” or dushá came about from the writings of such greats as Gogol, Tolstoy, and Dostoyevsky. The Russian Soul was primarily literary in nature. It helped readers understand the nature of Russian spirituality. But it also spoke to the essence of the Russian people. The dushá gave the world a sense of the Russians in a specific time and place. It is not unreasonable to carry forth this concept and say that all people have a soul which is understood through their culture.

That is why we study history and literature. We require an understanding of who we are as a people so that we as a people may continue to live. We study the national character of our people so that no matter where on earth we are, the children of Europe will always have a sense of who they are, and where they came from. To steal from a people their heritage, which was left to them by their forefathers, is an abomination.

*   *   *

History may concern the past, but it is far from dead. Quite the contrary, history is alive, but it can only live in the hearts of those dedicated to the preservation of the memory of their people. It can only live when the heirs of Europe hold their history as if it were a precious flame and must guard it against the storm. Without fire early man was dead. Without history, our civilization too shall die. Like the fire warming the hearth of a Roman home, history and culture are the fires that burn inside us to keep the legacy of our forefathers alive.

The Left Alienates Whites From Our History And Culture
Everitt Foster  May 22, 2017
Alt-Right.com


Individualism vs Cultural Community (19th Century)

Herder attached exceptional importance to the concept of nationality and of patriotism – "he that has lost his patriotic spirit has lost himself and the whole worlds about himself", whilst teaching that "in a certain sense every human perfection is national". Herder carried folk theory to an extreme by maintaining that "there is only one class in the state, the Volk, (not the rabble), and the king belongs to this class as well as the peasant". Explanation that the Volk was not the rabble was a novel conception in this era, and with Herder can be seen the emergence of "the people" as the basis for the emergence of a classless but hierarchical national body.

The nation, however, was individual and separate, distinguished, to Herder, by climate, education, foreign intercourse, tradition and heredity. Providence he praised for having "wonderfully separated nationalities not only by woods and mountains, seas and deserts, rivers and climates, but more particularly by languages, inclinations and characters". Herder praised the tribal outlook writing that "the savage who loves himself, his wife and child with quiet joy and glows with limited activity of his tribe as for his own life is in my opinion a more real being than that cultivated shadow who is enraptured with the shadow of the whole species", isolated since "each nationality contains its centre of happiness within itself, as a bullet the centre of gravity". With no need for comparison since "every nation bears in itself the standard of its perfection, totally independent of all comparison with that of others" for "do not nationalities differ in everything, in poetry, in appearance, in tastes, in usages, customs and languages? Must not religion which partakes of these also differ among the nationalities?"

Johann Gottfried Herder (1744 - 1803) [Wikipedia]

#FMA (For Mature Audiences)

#FMA (For Mature Audiences) means that if I or someone with the privilege of posting material to my wall, directly or by tagging me (which, I believe, means ALL of you), then the following rules apply:

1. Opinions based on arguments ONLY. No memes. No personal attacks. No off-topic or deflection from the thread’s argument. Ideally, no logical fallacies whatsoever - but, aside from those just explicitly mentioned, I recognize we can all err in that regard. See http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
2. Deductive arguments to be based on explicit and broadly based (though not necessarily universally accepted) premises and inductive arguments are to be supported by broadly accepted (though not necessarily universally accepted) facts.
3. In citing journalistic sources or authorities for factual claims contributors / knowledge creators (BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT WE ARE) should evidence a familiarity with the Pew Study on Political Polarization & Media Habits (http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/) and realize that if a conservative is citing Breitbart as an authority, that authority is unlikely to be persuasive to an NPR-listening liberal (and vice versa).
4. One should look for equally solid and broadly-based sources of evidence in supporting legal, economic, scientific, etc., opinions.
5. An #FMA tag can only be place by a contributor at the start of the thread and applies globally throughout the entire thread.
6. I RESERVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT to interpret these rules however I see fit and to delete (without comment) offending replies.
7. Should someone want to express outrage at my unfair, hypocritical, ignorant action in deleting their reply they should post a new thread to my wall and pee all over IT, if they feel the need. Or unfriend me. Remember, you can post whatever drivel, memes, HS (horse shit, in Truman’s idiom) in OTHER non-tagged threads.

#DISCUSSION_TOPIC (The name of the particular discussion so that Facebook discussion threads can be followed after the original discussion scrolls away.)

Let's all stay on the home planet, okay?

Hmmm... rants against Trump on Facebook. So have I.

""On his Facebook account, which came under attack from an angry public Wednesday, Hodgkinson lashed out more, railing against Trump and the Republican Party.

"“I Want to Say Mr. President, for being an ass hole you are Truly the Biggest Ass Hole We Have Ever Had in the Oval Office,” he wrote Monday on Facebook. That page and another that appears to belong to Hodgkinson were taken down after the shooting."


Participates in political protests... so have I (and have the tinfoil hat to prove it!)

"In 2012, Hodgkinson protested outside the Belleville post office to call attention to wealth and political inequality, calling himself part of the 99 percent, according to the Belleville News-Democrat. He carried a sign that read, “Tax the Rich Like Congress Did for 70 Years Till Reagan’s ‘Trickle Down.’”"


Volunteered in the 2016 presidential campaign... as did I.

"St. Clair County is surrounded by communities that voted heavily for Trump in the 2016 presidential election, but Hillary Clinton edged out Trump in St. Clair itself. Hodgkinson was a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders and had volunteered for his presidential campaign."


Wrote a series of letters to the editor... So have I.

""In a series of letters to the Belleville News-Democrat, he challenged GOP tax policies that he said helped the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. In November 2011 he called for higher taxes on the wealthy.

"I believe it's time for the 99 percent to demand that our Republican congressmen tax the rich like our great leaders of the past," he wrote. "Let's take back our country.""


Like Hodgkinson, I believe that I - as well as most other humans - have the capacity for violence.

(Don't be alarmed. I'd suck at it.)

If ever that aspect of my personality were to engage, I suspect the trigger would be an immediate, physical threat to myself, my family, my friends and - possibly even - complete strangers if I was close enough to intervene.

While I've been beaten up a number of times as a kid (including by my friends, usually for something I said :-) ), I haven't punched anyone since I was about ten years old.

I remember coming home crying because some neighborhood kid about two years younger than me was bullying me.

My "Golden Gloves" father said, "Why don't you just HIT him, for crying out loud?!"

"But what if I HURT him, " I bawled (one of a number of occasions where I baffled the hell out of him).

Nonetheless, the next time the kid bullied me, I punched him hard in the stomach. He doubled over, gasping and crying, and went home.

I hung up the gloves. So I'm 1 - 0. (I technically didn't LOSE the other subsequent times I got beat up because I didn't fight back. :-) )

This guy, on the other hand, seems to have engaged his inner propensity to violence on a number of previous occasions.

He also, in the end, crossed the mysterious line between thinking hard thoughts and ranting hard things - on the one hand - and shooting the targets of his wrath - on the other.

I suspect it has to do with my rock solid belief that killing people or even wishing them dead because of some political or religious abstraction, or even because they are causing harm in some concrete but less than lethal way, is the way of madness. And, whatever time I have left in this life, I'd like to spend it in reality rather than some delusional hero fantasy. Which cuts to the heart of my strident objections to Trump's embrace and celebration of factual nonsense.

Reality is important enough to fight for. But even that is not enough to kill for.

James Hodgkinson’s long descent into rage

CLEARING THE AIR

If, as in an earlier incident, I am blamed for supporting political assassination because I THOUGHT MY FRIENDS ALREADY KNEW THAT I'M *APPALLED* BY IT, I want to make it crystal clear that while many Americans hold views I strongly believe to be abhorrent and ignorant, they are still human beings - and Americans.

Dumber than a bag of hammers Americans, but still Americans. And while I have no interest in sparing their feelings and self-esteem, I hold their physical well-being and personhood inviolate.

I absolutely reject violence and destruction of property as a way of addressing political issues in America and, indeed, in this time of this unprecedented assault on American civic values and institutions, consider such actions as part of the problem rather than as part of the solution.

But while we ALL have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we DO NOT all have a right to respect for our words and actions.

Respect is earned.

If any of my Trump-supporting friends need further assurance on that, please email me with your concerns at billb@kissmyass.com. :-)

REALITY TV AT ITS FINEST!

There seems to be about 30% of Americans who will believe anything Trump says. When he is forced out they will no doubt believe he was the victim of a coup.

And he, of course, will embrace that narrative.

I'm sure that as he considers resignation vs. impeachment and conviction he will calculate whether the aggravation and indignities he would suffer with impeachment would be offset by the drama of it all.

Thirty percent is not enough to win elections.

Thirty percent is not enough to stave off impeachment.

But I imagine a Trump network with 30% viewership that gives every indication of lasting forever

(I see, 150 years from now, culture wars over whether statues of Trump belong in public squares or if they should be exiled to museums and contextualized. :-) )

That's A LOT of advertising revenue!!