New Feature: Progressive-Versus-Conservative Debate?

 

Washington’s Blog is a non-partisan site.

We believe that the war between liberals and conservatives is a false divide-and-conquer dog-and-pony show created by the powers that be to keep the American people divided and distracted. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

On the other hand, some very good writers are partisan and favor one side, but cite a lot of interesting facts and make a lot of good points along the way.

So – while Washington’s Blog will remain nonpartisan – we are considering letting a liberal writer post whatever he wants “from the left”, that is, the progressive view. He would discuss what he argues are the “hidden” motives of Republicans, conservatives and libertarians.

And we would let a conservative writer post whatever he wants “from the right”, that is, criticism of the welfare/warfare state. He would discuss what he argues are the “hidden” motives of Democrats, liberals and progressives.

While most websites are either always from the left (e.g. Huffington Post) or from the right (e.g. Drudge Report), the idea is that this would open up a debate on one site … so that people can be exposed to the strongest arguments from both sides.

What do you – honored reader – think?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • truth

    as long as they are anti-war, anti-corruption and accept the fact that congress, pentagon, and intelligence agencies in collusion with corporations and banks are corrupted to their cores, and people in the elite left/right are in collusion with one another in this dog pony show as stated

    as they long as they don’t follow the status quo of this New Roman Republic/Empire, then sure why not

  • marki

    sure should be a place for both views, and awareness of compromise

  • John48235

    I’m definitely with you that the left / right distinction is increasingly pointless (especially when used in the context of the jackass gang [D] versus the elephant gang [R] — as recent polls indicate a majority of US citizens identify with neither).

    So what useful purpose is served by encouraging negative stereotyping by including these distinctions, rather than just allowing two more writers write what they feel like writing and let the writing be judged on its own merits?

  • Roger Grabbit

    That perspective should not dominate the tone of the article. While there may be a difference between progressive and conservative philosophies, there is virtually no difference between republicans and democrats. Perhaps you could give more detail on why the “label” is important enough to disclose.

  • Michael Deloatch

    I am more interested in reading cogent presentation of facts. Not presentation of a faction’s talking points. But aren’t there enough voices out there in favor of the establishment?

  • Bluto

    I believe this to blog to be one of the very best out there for supplying real information on the most important subjects in the geopolitical/economic arena. I have been reading for years and feel that I can always find objective truth here – mainly because the site has always recognized the 2 party duopoly – the snake with 2 heads. The reference and documentation included with articles is key to letting me have confidence that I am dealing with truth.
    A liberal or conservative slant does not have to impair the truth.
    I believe I know who the 1% controlling most world events are – and this site has never gone all the way to exposing them – because it would then become a pariah as the 1% does not tolerate being exposed and is very well-versed in both character and real assassination. JFK got in their way. Michael Savage got in their way. MLK got in their way. Rachel Courie (the very definition of courage) literally got in the way of one of their bulldozers.
    There is not much time left now.
    Good luck.

  • Dave

    Opportunities: Critical thinking by the readers, learning to identify biases if applicable, “seek to understand so that you may be understood….Downside:…….

  • goingnowherefast

    Have you read the HuffPost lately? It is definitely not of the left anymore than Obama is a progressive. That being said, it’s always worth testing our independence by reading writers we might not be drawn to because of ideological bias. Finding common ground where we can is imperative at this point if we are to unshackle ourselves from the chains of the 1%.

  • Zane Zodrow

    As a general rule, any article which starts blaming or praising based on Repulicrat lines or talking points causes me to stop reading and find a better source for my information. And HuffPo has been worthless at least since they sold out to corporate media.

  • Carl_Herman

    As a hypothetical, it’s hard to evaluate, so I’d say go for a trial run and then ask again.

    If we’re talking about an ECONOMIC preference to greater public investment for public goods and services (progressive), or for less public investment (libertarian), with cogent argument we’re better off as a society that way, then yeah, I’ve read fascinating and valuable work from both perspectives.

    If we’re talking POLITICAL preference to either Left or Right arm of the one US criminal fascist political monster, then that would be unusual to be both valuable while blind to massive crimes from both sides of the political aisle.

    And again, hypothetical thinking only gets us so far. I would definitely be interested if the author wanted to mix it up with the comments so we could point-out any bias we could find, and then see if there was rational response.

  • KimD

    Just like Cognitive Dissonance posted on ZH – “Cry Havoc and Let Slip the Dogs of War” upon both heads of the snake Bluto describes. I also am no longer willing to give my “sovereign power to those who, in turn, will use it to lead us into the slaughter house” and prefer to not give them any sort of pulpit. I like when you pull back the curtain and expose their underbelly. I say let slip your dogs Washington:)
    btw, I an a recent fan and LOVE your blog!

  • Fullblad

    I don’t see the point in airing tired mainstream opinion of either the left or the right. However if new ground were to be covered, the building of a second republic funded with a debt free money system or some such,I’d be all for it.

  • jadan

    What about the person who believes that our way of life is not sustainable and that political debate in the usual right/left, conservative/liberal way is just arranging deck chairs on the Titanic ( to use a very apt cliche!)? What about the person who understands that our way of life is already collapsing under its own weight of incompetence and stupidity and is about to yield to a discontinuity that no one wants to think about because it’s unthinkable? There are more people in this camp than one might suspect. What category should they be put it?

  • ClubToTheHead

    The discussion between Left and Right has been a meaningless but effective means of “divide and conquer.” The true division lies between Upstairs and Downstairs; what passes for Right and Left are both comfortably ensconced Upstairs.

  • Old Gold(water)

    It’s been a long time since I’ve read any John Birch literature. But I do remember they identified the Council on Foreign Relations as a snake pit of evil. I believe the Birchers called them ‘Communists’ rather than International Bankers. That mistake alone perhaps should disqualify their views from serious consideration. Nevertheless, they were the first people I recall who attempted to focus attention on what another book termed “The Imperial Brain Trust” and the “cosmopolitanism” (read ‘treason’) of international bankers and the 0.001%. I’d like to hear more from them – not the mad howlings of “Communist conspiracy” but more naming names, etc.

  • irategrandmother

    I detest that labels of conservative or liberal need to be used to describe anyone. I hate the mudslinging that goes on in the blame game. I believe that debates should be about how to solve certain issues, and that the debate should remain with the issues – not with which political party created some historical statistic. I would not mind seeing an intellectual debate on how to solve some of the issues in our government. Let’s start with how to finance political campaigns or why Washington thinks perpetual war is necessary.

  • Bill Pahnelas

    i see nothing to be gained by playing off the red-state-blue-state divide — which we recognize from the git as a strategy to disempower people, anyone reading already can pick up the personal political attitudes of most of this site’s writers, but the valuable thing is that a common imperative to dismantle the current political-economic order comes through clearly regardless. if the site goes about intentionally poking a stick into the hornets nest of our philosophical inclinations looking for points of disagreement, that will quite likely destroy the comity that exists and the trust readers have in the site playing things pretty much right down the middle. but if “washington” thinks this is what is needed, well, it’s his sandbox, he can try whatever he wishes.

  • I think there’s subtleties like REAL liberals IMO are Cynthia McKinney, Chris Hedges, Ralph Nader (who are marginalized by fake liberals called Democrats & fake right media…do you ever see them on MSNBC?), and REAL conservatives may be someone like Paul Craig Roberts (who are marginalized by fake conservatives called Republicans & fake right media…do you ever see him on FOX “news”?). REAL liberals and REAL conservatives have a LOT in common: they’re against the police state, against the wars of lies, and against the bankers. There’s really no left/right on those issues, they’re in synch with all the REAL important issues.

  • Name

    The only way that citizens will be able to control capitalism and the government, two systems that are supposed to work for their benefit, is to find common cause. So for biased articles I would say no. However, for neutral articles about subjects commonly attributed to one political stripe or another, I would say yes regardless of the conclusions. Since you are already cross-posted and cited a great deal, I would ask whether you want to change a successful format. On the other hand, it shows you can trust your own judgement. Glad to be of help.

  • Angelo Puccinelli

    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

  • J_Bookly

    Many political views have a strong cultural component. The layer underneath the top layer has to do with upbringing, education, religious affiliation, big city vs small town, north vs south, how the bullies treated you in high school, and other factors that can be modified only by experience, not by argument. WB operates at a deeper level than let’s-you-and-him-fight, and I don’t see that your proposal is going to do anything but change that.

  • jimmydominic

    I’m apprehensive. I definitely do not want to see this turn into a climate change debate. Some things you have to stick with- like what 90% of scientists believe is true. Also, the problem with the left vs. right thing is that you bring back that team mentality that divides us so much. You’ll have people debating about problems, though important, that are far less important than the super-rich’s dominance over the rest of the population. I love this site because it sticks with what’s most important- getting people to shake themselves of the left-right facade and focus on the big picture. I don’t want anything that might diminish that.

  • empty

    just report the facts