Can someone explain what "far right" means, particularly in the context of Fox News? I mean, I know it's a given and is continually and uncritically repeated as if it were a Buddhist mantra, but I'd like to actually know what it means. I ask this as someone who doesn't watch (hate-watch or otherwise) any of the cable news channels, except 2 shows on FBN which are explicitly libertarian in nature. Back when Al Jazeera America still existed, I watched it fairly regularly, though not as much as I thought I would - this probably has something to do with it being buried with the other cable news channels on DirecTV in the mid-300s. I'd like to understand where these superheated labels are coming from. Should I don my raincoat now to protect against all the sputtering that is sure to ensue?
Compared to anything people have seen since the Civil War (which I guess means ever), Republicans are more conservative. Therefore, far-right. I personally dislike the label for the following reason. If you were to have a bunch of conservatives fill out a seven-point scale, ranging from 1 = "Moderately Conservative" to 7 = "Radical/Extreme Conservative," you'll get a lot of people who will avoid the most radical poles of the scale even when they might fit if "experts" followed them around for a year to get a sense of their political opinions. Why? Because nobody wants to be seen as extreme on anything. So we have this massive selection problem wherein moderates and radicals choose less extreme labels, creating an illusion of this: when it might be this: http:// http://
Whoever created the graph messed up the colors... Are the labels based on actual positions or just on their nominal self-description? For example, Paul Ryan presents himself as a slightly to the right conservative, but the guy is almost as extreme as Cruz or Bachman based on the actual votes. If anything, we have a bunch of extremists on congress that pulls legislation to the right and with them the rest of the party and to certain extent the minority that is willing to compromise.
It's this double-equality that I have trouble with. Yes, in the common parlance, it might make sense, but the common parlance likes to strip out context and re-imagine definitions of things such that words don't really mean much of anything remotely consistent. This is my usual rant on labels, if you haven't figured it out. But none of this actually addresses what is far-right or how Fox News is that. You've deftly avoided answering the question asked by posting graphs, which you love to do. This time, I don't really know why. You and I agree on an awful lot, despite our history of sniping at each other particularly over our areas of difference. I asked a question about what "far-right" is. As part of that, I asked the question to be answered in the specific context of Fox News. I have zero doubt that Fox News has a particular audience they generally go after, and a particular style they use to achieve it, and that it materially differs from the other major news organizations. I would say that it tends nationalist (which is not inherently right-wing, though it often is) and certainly skews authoritarian socially (again, not inherently right-wing) and skews cronyist economically (you see the pattern here). These three broad "philosophies" can be used to describe fascism, but also other authoritarian "-isms". I have no doubt that you are right about the human tendency to not want to be seen as extreme on anything. I don't know how that applies here.
Holding more conservative positions than before is what makes Fox News, and its audience, "far-right." That's what I'm telling you. MSNBC is "far-left" because they hold more liberal positions (as does their audience) than liberals of the 1950s or 1980s did.
I'm coming to the belief that left-wing and right-wing aren't as useful descriptors as they used to be.
Than before what/when? And again, where does "conservative" actually stand in as a proxy for "far-right"? I would say that MSNBC espouses an awful lot of illiberal views. This is why using proxy terms like "liberal" and "conservative" to stand for "left" and "right" is pretty much absurd. It means nothing and bizarrely leads to exactly what we get when we ask a man on the street what he labels himself, then get a completely self-inconsistent set of ideas about what he actually supports such that, scientifically, there should be brain 'splosions.
I do enjoy false attribution. Almost as much as desperate attempts to talk down positive numbers (on occasion, there's just no other way to go - all the graphs are trending in the right direction. It happens. Trying to pretend it isn't so is silliness.)
We will have to agree to disagree. I will argue that labeling broad swathes of the public is liberal or conservative can often lead to biased understanding of the complexities/apathy of the American voter, but it's better than anything else we've got.
I would argue that it DRIVES that condition and will continue to make it worse. If that's the best we can do, we got problems.
Especially as the Big Sort continues, well, sorting. The classic example is how conservatives view deficits when Obama is POTUS compared to how they viewed deficits when W was POTUS.
Or drone strikes when Obama does them compared to when Bush did them, yes many liberals oppose them but is not high on the list of things that make me want to complain about.
Or undeclared war-like kinetic action-type thingies, also known as (simultaneously!) "my biggest mistake" and "smart power at its best".
Well, as far as I'm concernted, here's the real problem with American news. MSNBC happens to illustrate it quite wll in this example, featuring a Congresswoman and Andrea Mitchell.
I keep seeing that term being flung about as a pejorative, presumably because someone called themselves that at one point or another? Or is it folklore, like a lot of things, and it just evolved out of some argument or another with dapip?
There was a poster here who would espouse views a bit to the right of Dick Cheney (very slight exaggeration) who called himself that. That was c. 2004. He vanished about the time of the financial crisis of 2008, IIRC, re-appearing sporadically in Bill Archer's thread.
Search for posts by Karl K (or maybe Karl K.) and Karl Keller. He was part of the mass exodus of conservatives after the Iraq War turned into a catastro********, Katrina, etc.
Basically, it refers to people who are Republicans who don't call themselves Republicans for some strange reason. I suspect it's supposed to give an illusion of independent, unbiased thought, which is nice but which doesn't really exist. Except in my posts, of course. And yours when I rep them.
It refers to folks who are clearly conservative but want to act like they're neutral arbiters on issues. ETA...seconds late.