http://nolabels.org/

I'm trying to figure out how to say this correctly, and I think that I've pretty much decided that there's no way I can say it respectfully. I disagree vehemently with the idea that there's anything to the "No Labels!" movement other than a handful of very wealthy narcissists who believe that their policies obviously sit right at the point where everyone in America should naturally agree with them.

 

We see this all the time, especially from the media. A group of people declare that they obviously are able to speak for America, and that America wants the policies they happen to line up with perfectly. If you read their issues statements...they use waste words like "Americans should celebrate global trade". Their energy policy page recommendations are pretty much "Business as usual" and don't even mention climate change. Their page on the deficit was written by the Peter G. Petersen foundation, which is dedicated to massive cuts in Social Security in Medicare in the name of balancing the budget (you got to see what their plan looked like in the Deficit commission report...massive upper class tax cuts combined with stripping back Social Security and magically assuming Medicare will shrink).

 

It's a cute name and the name does fit the times...but it's the same as a Bloomberg candidacy. It's the wealthy and influential people advocating for policies that benefit them hugely...but they're 100% convinced everyone really believes in them and they're the best thing for everyone.

oh, how nice, a "moderate" feel good idealogy.

 

oh, how nice, a "moderate" feel good idealogy.

Kap takes what I said and distills it down into 8 words and a smiley.

 

Beautiful.

I agree with you on this one.

slate had an article about this not too long ago that said the whole "no labels" thing was well-meaning, but stupid. There is no such thing as "no labels" and "appeal to moderation" is a logical fallacy (reference to logical fallacies - where's StrangeSox)

It's the wealthy and influential people advocating for policies that benefit them hugely...but they're 100% convinced everyone really believes in them and they're the best thing for everyone.

 

Everyone in congress/senate is wealthy, regardless of affiliation, and they're only getting richer.

 

I'm not saying anything about the topic at hand, because I agree it's a bunch of BS...but so are all of them. We have become a nation of vote buying. The republicans buy the rich vote/religious vote, the democrats buy the poor votes, and meanwhile, they all get richer regardless who wins or loses. They love fighting on the public stage when cameras are rolling, but they're all glad handed each other behind closed doors while popping open hundred dollar bottles of champagne, while talking about how awesome they are and how the public needs them!

slate had an article about this not too long ago that said the whole "no labels" thing was well-meaning, but stupid. There is no such thing as "no labels" and "appeal to moderation" is a logical fallacy (reference to logical fallacies - where's StrangeSox)

100% disagree with the bold part. What it REALLY means isn't going to be overly popular, but it is still definitely a real political dynamic.

 

100% disagree with the bold part. What it REALLY means isn't going to be overly popular, but it is still definitely a real political dynamic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

Appeal to moderation and Argument to moderation are not the same - grammatically or othewise. Appeal to moderation has helped any number of politicians, and its something that will probably become more prevalent. Argument to moderation is the assignment of righteousness.

 

Maybe lostfan meant the latter, I can't tell for sure.

 

Appeal to moderation and Argument to moderation are not the same - grammatically or othewise. Appeal to moderation has helped any number of politicians, and its something that will probably become more prevalent. Argument to moderation is the assignment of righteousness.

 

Maybe lostfan meant the latter, I can't tell for sure.

 

But's it's still a fallacy to assume that because B lies between A and C, B is a good compromise. It could be that A is terrible, B is bad, C is good, so compromising from C to B would be a bad idea.

 

Basically it assumes that the current political window represents the true range with extremes on each end and good, pragmatic solutions in the middle.

 

edit: here's a blog post I found expanding on the idea a little more.

http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/1718/pu..._ground_fallacy

Edited January 10, 201115 yr by StrangeSox

But's it's still a fallacy to assume that because B lies between A and C, B is a good compromise. It could be that A is terrible, B is bad, C is good, so compromising from C to B would be a bad idea.

 

Basically it assumes that the current political window represents the true range with extremes on each end and good, pragmatic solutions in the middle.

What these guys are doing though isn't really that fallacy...it's probably a step sillier. They're advocating for policies that they want (lower upper class taxes, social security and medicare cuts used to pay for them, etc.) and declaring that those policies are the centrist position.

 

Their game is to claim that "D" is between "A and C" and therefore, D is the centrist and just and correct policy. And D just happens to be everything that would benefit them.

But's it's still a fallacy to assume that because B lies between A and C, B is a good compromise. It could be that A is terrible, B is bad, C is good, so compromising from C to B would be a bad idea.

 

Basically it assumes that the current political window represents the true range with extremes on each end and good, pragmatic solutions in the middle.

 

edit: here's a blog post I found expanding on the idea a little more.

http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/1718/pu..._ground_fallacy

It is not a fallacy, unless you take it as your philosophy that for all issues, you take the middle point, and that must be right. That is the Argument to Moderation stance, which I disagree with.

 

When someone says APPEAL to moderation, that is entirely different. It is saying the polarity of the two parties has gotten out of hand, and we need to get SOME things done via compromise. Not only is that not a fallacy, its something I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

It is not a fallacy, unless you take it as your philosophy that for all issues, you take the middle point, and that must be right. That is the Argument to Moderation stance, which I disagree with.

 

When someone says APPEAL to moderation, that is entirely different. It is saying the polarity of the two parties has gotten out of hand, and we need to get SOME things done via compromise. Not only is that not a fallacy, its something I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

But look at one of the specific examples called out in that article--Health Care. If the Democrats stay put for two decades while the Republicans hop, skip and jump to the right, then the "middle ground" also shifts to the right. People get rewarded for increasingly outlandish and extreme positions since it shifts the window in their favor.

But look at one of the specific examples called out in that article--Health Care. If the Democrats stay put for two decades while the Republicans hop, skip and jump to the right, then the "middle ground" also shifts to the right. People get rewarded for increasingly outlandish and extreme positions since it shifts the window in their favor.

You are still not a tall getting my point - you are lumping two very different concepts in together.

 

Tea Party versus No Label Party

 

No movement stays true to its origins, and neither will this one.

Tea Party versus No Label Party

 

No movement stays true to its origins, and neither will this one.

WTF tex? Its origins are a well finance group of very wealthy people dedicated to advancing their own political views.

WTF tex? Its origins are a well finance group of very wealthy people dedicated to advancing their own political views.

 

Are you talking about Soros or Huffington?

Are you talking about Soros or Huffington?

Both of whom clearly benefit if their taxes go up.

Here's a group that you can either get behind or don't. I don't care.

 

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2009...pathy_Party.JPG

WTF tex? Its origins are a well finance group of very wealthy people dedicated to advancing their own political views.

 

 

And both have or will be changed by later joiners.

And both have or will be changed by later joiners.

Name a group financed by very wealthy people where the views of the very wealthy have been lost.

Name a group financed by very wealthy people where the views of the very wealthy have been lost.

 

 

Democratic Party

Democratic Party