The Rush Limbaugh Appreciation Thread

[Mirror Image]

My political compass

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

You and I are very close politically, Karl. Dave is too. Great minds think alike.

[CaughtintheGaze]

Entire thread on the political matrix:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,16844.0.html

[Gurn Blanston]

Entire thread on the political matrix:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,16844.0.html

Meh... more dry political rhetoric than any matrix'ing....

[Mirror Image]

On that political test, I scored the following:

Your score pegs you as economically leftist and socially centrist.

Economic leftists mostly support strict economic controls and programs to assure that the poor are elevated to a higher position in society.

Social centrists generally believe in a mix of individual liberties and controls, corresponding to what they see as moral or best for society.

[kishnevi]

I'm apparently returning to my socialist youth.  The last time I took it I was almost on the center line for economic matters.

Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69

[CaughtintheGaze]

Meh... more dry political rhetoric than any matrix'ing....

Gurn, my man, rhetoric is never dry.

[Mirror Image]

I'm apparently returning to my socialist youth.  The last time I took it I was almost on the center line for economic matters.

Economic Left/Right: -3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69

Ha!

[Florestan]

Economic leftists mostly support strict economic controls and programs to assure that the poor are elevated to a higher position in society.

The only thing that strict economic programs and controls can assure in respect to the poor (and to the society at large) is poverty itself. This is a historically proven fact and the experience of the former communist camp (of which two remnants are still alive, to the great misfortune of those nations) should serve as a bitter lesson to all those who still think that a command-and-control economy can produce anything else than misery and oppression . It should but apparently it doesn't... 

I'm apparently returning to my socialist youth. 

Well, someone on the other thread is worth quoting: you are all a bunch of commies... 

[North Star]

In real life, I support the National Coalition Party, the big 'right-wing' party in Finland, though they're still very close to the US Democrats.

[Mirror Image]

The only thing that strict economic programs and controls can assure in respect to the poor (and to the society at large) is poverty itself. This is a historically proven fact and the experience of the former communist camp (of which two remnants are still alive, to the great misfortune of those nations) should serve as a bitter lesson to all those who still think that a command-and-control economy can produce anything else than misery and oppression . It should but apparently it doesn't... 
Well, someone on the other thread is worth quoting: you are all a bunch of commies... 

I'm against Communism. I think it's a failed system and, yes, it has proven that it doesn't work. What I am for, however, is getting stricter with corporations, especially in regards to outsourcing. Corporations in the United States get away with murder and the government simply allows them to do as they please, because, quite frankly, most politicians are bought and paid for. I'm against a company that thinks it can do whatever it wants. I'm for companies that invest in their workers and encourage trade with other countries that want their products. If the United States, invests in it's companies again and it's people, then I think there will be a recovery. Oh and electing Romney, isn't going to solve anything. He's just another Bush in sheep's clothing.

[kishnevi]

I'm against Communism. I think it's a failed system and, yes, it has proven that it doesn't work. What I am for, however, is getting stricter with corporations, especially in regards to outsourcing. Corporations in the United States get away with murder and the government simply allows them to do as they please, because, quite frankly, most politicians are bought and paid for. I'm against a company that thinks it can do whatever it wants. I'm for companies that invest in their workers and encourage trade with other countries that want their products. If the United States, invests in it's companies again and it's people, then I think there will be a recovery. Oh and electing Romney, isn't going to solve anything. He's just another Bush in sheep's clothing.

I'm in general agreement with the above.  I think one thing strict free market economics has never taken account of is that aggregations of money can themselves become a source of power and economic coercion, and that therefore it really is possible for someone to be so rich that he is harmful to his community, or some business to be so big that harms the general welfare.  Which is why I support progressive taxation and estate taxes and, in principle, regulation.  The problem with regulation is regulatory capture, which is itself a facet of the problem of companies being too big for society's good.  The test turned that into support of leftist economics, but I suppose that's an example of why the test shouldn't be taken at face value.

[Florestan]

I'm in general agreement with the above.  I think one thing strict free market economics has never taken account of is that aggregations of money can themselves become a source of power and economic coercion, and that therefore it really is possible for someone to be so rich that he is harmful to his community, or some business to be so big that harms the general welfare.

Actually this is neither left nor right but just plain common sense.

  Which is why I support progressive taxation and estate taxes and, in principle, regulation.

Oh boy, you have really kissed libertarianism good bye...

The test turned that into support of leftist economics, but I suppose that's an example of why the test shouldn't be taken at face value.

Yes, the test is biased in that it would make all major European right-wing parties look like leftists in disguise. Perhaps it is tailored for the US scene, where "Socialism!" is cried out loud at the slightest mention of governmental regulation.

[ibanezmonster]

What I got:

A bit more to the left than I thought, although about as Libertarian as I thought.

[Geo Dude]

Welcome back, Dave W!!
I regularly read Ross Douthat and have in the past been an avid reader of Charles Krauthammer and Thomas Sowell, though they are growing overripe with age, so to speak. I am a weekly reader of all the editorials in the Economist and would consider that magazine the best, most intelligent "commentator" on the conservative (that is, economically liberal) scene.

In addition to those, I think that Daniel Larison is one of the top conservative thinkers in the country.  Very intelligent and very honest.  For that matter, while I'm sure I would find some silliness if I paged through The American Conservative, I was (and remain) extremely impressed that the cover story the first time I visited their website was one asking if the Tea Party's pseudo-libertarian tendencies could be used to manipulate convince them to go anti-war and start pushing Republicans in that direction.  That notion of making the Tea Party go anti-war is nothing short of a dream, of course*, but it's a pretty damn nice dream.

*Please note that this rule only applies to wars started by people with an R behind their name.  I'm sure they would be perfectly happy to go anti-war if Obama started a full-scale war of any kind.

EDIT:  Oh, what the hell....

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90

[The new erato]

Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87



VERY close to North Star I see.....

[mc ukrneal]

Gosh, you all make me look like an ultra-conservative with how far left the trend is! I was about where I expected, though a bit more Libertarian than I realized. But I am close to center on the left-right thing.

I'm against Communism. I think it's a failed system and, yes, it has proven that it doesn't work. What I am for, however, is getting stricter with corporations, especially in regards to outsourcing. Corporations in the United States get away with murder and the government simply allows them to do as they please, because, quite frankly, most politicians are bought and paid for. I'm against a company that thinks it can do whatever it wants. I'm for companies that invest in their workers and encourage trade with other countries that want their products. If the United States, invests in it's companies again and it's people, then I think there will be a recovery. Oh and electing Romney, isn't going to solve anything. He's just another Bush in sheep's clothing.

I just don't understand much that comes after Communism. 

What 'murder' do they get away with? Arent there enough laws to regulate them (concerning pretty much anything)?How do they do what they please? Which politicians are paid for and by whom? What normal companies don't invest in their workers? What companies don't encourage trade with other countries (which seems contradictory to what you are saying unless I misunderstand)? When you say that if the US invests in its companies and people are you referring to the US government or US companies in general?

I'm in general agreement with the above.  I think one thing strict free market economics has never taken account of is that aggregations of money can themselves become a source of power and economic coercion, and that therefore it really is possible for someone to be so rich that he is harmful to his community, or some business to be so big that harms the general welfare.  Which is why I support progressive taxation and estate taxes and, in principle, regulation.  The problem with regulation is regulatory capture, which is itself a facet of the problem of companies being too big for society's good.  The test turned that into support of leftist economics, but I suppose that's an example of why the test shouldn't be taken at face value.

I bolded something I am surprised to read. How much is too rich? Might not a small company in a niche industry fit your meaning, while a huge company in a huge industry not?

[Wendell_E]

I feel like such a radical, especially here in Alabama.



and, not surprisingly, not big on the Limbaugh appreciation.   

[North Star]

Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87



VERY close to North Star I see.....

I see you knew the correct answers to most of the questions 

What numbers did you get, Ukrneal?
I'm not Jeffrey or John, but I agree with their posts. Uncontrolled capitalism doesn't work because the companies can form cartels and buy off the competition.
And you're certainly right - the size of the market and the company can vary, but they all have to be regulated - even the small companies in a niche market.
In Finland, cartels are quite often in concrete business. My great-uncle's firm suffered quite bit from this back in the 70s.

[Florestan]

Gosh, you all make me look like an ultra-conservative with how far left the trend is!

I have exactly the same feeling, Neal., but I'm under the impression that, at least in the economic realm, the way the test is formulated makes even people who usually consider themselves right-wing and vote accordingly, as myself, look like leftists in disguise. For instance, most major European right-wing parties, be they Christian Democratic, Conservative or Liberal, support and apply, in one form or another, safety net policies, single-payment state-managed medical insurance, state managed retirement funds and anti-trust laws yet none of them would accept to be labelled left, because these policies are neither left nor right but middle-ground and common-sense-ical. So on the economic scale the test is not very accurate IMO.

OTOH, I think it depicts quite well the left-right split on the social scale and this is indeed where the trend is clearly left to far-left.

I was about where I expected, though a bit more Libertarian than I realized. But I am close to center on the left-right thing.

Could you please post your results? I am very curious about where you stand.

FWIW, another test qualifies me as follows:


Economic score: +3.61
Social score: +3.83

Your score pegs you as economically moderately capitalist and socially moderately authoritarian.

Moderate capitalists usually support free trade and low taxes, but take pragmatic stances according to what they believe will be best for business and workers.

Moderate social authoritarians typically support social controls meant to encourage moral behavior and an organized society, although they may have some moderate or libertarian positions.

What 'murder' do they get away with? Arent there enough laws to regulate them (concerning pretty much anything)?How do they do what they please? Which politicians are paid for and by whom? What normal companies don't invest in their workers? What companies don't encourage trade with other countries (which seems contradictory to what you are saying unless I misunderstand)? When you say that if the US invests in its companies and people are you referring to the US government or US companies in general?
How much is too rich? Might not a small company in a niche industry fit your meaning, while a huge company in a huge industry not?

These are excellent questions to which I too would like to know the answer.

[mc ukrneal]

Could you please post your results? I am very curious about where you stand.

What numbers did you get, Ukrneal?
I'm not Jeffrey or John, but I agree with their posts. Uncontrolled capitalism doesn't work because the companies can form cartels and buy off the competition.
And you're certainly right - the size of the market and the company can vary, but they all have to be regulated - even the small companies in a niche market.
In Finland, cartels are quite often in concrete business. My great-uncle's firm suffered quite bit from this back in the 70s.

I think I was:
Economic Left/Right: -0.25  (so just to the left of the line, though I think I was just to the right the first time I took it)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82 (I think this was identical to the first time I took it)

I don't think the question is uncontrolled vs controlled capitalism. Western markets are certainly regulated, but so are most throughout the world.  Rather, the question is to what degree we regulate them. Too far in either direction is a negative, though my experience is that over-regulation is a detriment to growth and development, while no regulation can lead to bubbles, poor consumer protections, etc. So some sort of minimum is needed, but leaving business enough room to grow.