Central Argument

What are the fundamental of the Left vs Right dichotomy and do our political parties get what they want?

Actual Conservative Governments do not destroy law. Conservatives prefer a lack of regulatory oversight.

This is a fundamentally different to the Neo-conservative view that Government gets in the way of freedom and all you must do is to eliminate regulations that restrict business from actions even if they may have terrible consequences.

The Right maintain that mankind both has a duty and a responsibility to go to the moon, or it seems to kill every living creature with Nuclear War if that is the order of things.

Neo-Conservative are a new branch of the Right Wing family/cult. It is not the same as the Bush II era of neocon philosophy such as the ‘New American Century’ document describes. That document inaccurately describes the goals of the American Experiment and that view is not necessarily true of most Americans, but it forms the basis on which modern Neo-conservative beliefs lie. The old neocon beliefs sound relatively acceptable while Neo-conservative thought reaches far beyond making a government for the people, by the people, of the people. No, the newer Neo-conservative movement believes it is right for the government to hoodwink the civilisation into allowing them to reduce Government, leaving corporate America to its own set of rules of the jungle. It is an acceptance that Trumpism is the future as people will vote for the best showman, no matter what he is actually saying, his ego is one that you only have to stroke and the cash taps turn on.

QAnon is also necessary. This set of discussions they can draw a contrast to, and appear rational despite their completely fabricated conspiracy theory nonsense, theirs’ are not ridiculous like QAnon’s. So the Neo-conservatives hope to soak up the passive yawning acceptance of the briefly interested.

Once the election is over, they can ignore the government until it is time to pay the taxes but we have guns so that’s okay. These kinds of arguments are similar to saying, its okay for us to have a billionaire as a leader because accumulating that much dough helps you to focus on not being poor. However, democracy is more than lying to an electorate who subscribe to your junk because “at least they are not crazy like QAnon.”

The central Left/Right schism relies on each side acting against the interests of the other to achieve its stated objective, but their methods often result in unexpected results because they are politically driven, instead of being logical, overall.

For example, the American decision to invade Iraq, or the Russian decision to invade Ukraine.

The invasion of Iraq was a mistake but we can only live with its consequences but they made it quite certain that the uprising in the muslim world of a criminally motivated Government in Afghanistan means that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the whole world and America needed a new Crusade. Russia’s reasons for invading Ukraine seem more complex and thought about over a longer term. It is a gamble taken by Putin that he can get away with it (like the Soviet Union did) because the West’s resolve could be modulated by threat. The last time this worked was when the World was broken by WWII and this time, well everyone has far nastier weapons and, it seems, the need to use them to make history bend to your will, is once again in play as a factor. The brief lie that Saddam was a nuclear threat that allowed Blair to slide the UK into a state of war, never came to pass. Saddam was factually not a nuclear threat, but Russia wants the West to know that he is, without making direct threats, he manages to direct the Western response to his genocidal attack on Ukraine. Or perhaps that is what appears to be through the fog of war.

The galling and glaring truth is that Putin has damaged Russia, militarily and reputation in a whole world of countries. Russia may have a majority holding of the world’s buried resources, ones that we would be most smart to stop using. Progress makes this more possible but this is only one of the costs of this war to Russia. There is also the massive loss of tanks and ordnance. And lives.

If the terms of this war expand has some have predicted, the costs may be far greater and Russia will not survive. If Russia attempts to use nuclear weapons, it will not survive. If Russia does not negotiate a swift withdrawal and depose their current direction, it could result in the end of Russia as we have come to know it. Losing in Ukraine makes Russia weak. Winning in Ukraine makes Russia weaker. Why does the Neo-conservative appear to back Russia in this conflict? Why, indeed?