Weakness of the 'Left' in America

demonspawn

Overheal wrote: »

Uhhhhhhhhhhm.............. your argument is invalid

Not that I think the Obama administration is tyrannical, but a few of these protesters would have.

They're not a threat to anyone...because they're idiots. No action needed.

The anti-WTO protesters are (were) a threat to the bank accounts of many of the world's wealthiest people, and those people will commit murder in order to sustain their extravagant lifestyles.

Edit: I realize I'm treading on conspiracy theory insanity so I'll stop there. =P

Overheal

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

southsiderosie

I don't think you can blame Fox News for the state of the American left. Fox is a relatively new phenomenon, but there has never been an politically viable socialist party in the United States.

That said, left-wing/progressive politics have a long history in the US, but I think they have been obscured because as the political pendulum swings and time marches on, how we define politics get refracted through our current lenses. Arguably FDR's New Deal policies were quite liberal and progressive, even for the era. Interestingly they were passed when communism was a real phenomenon, which makes the current Republican party's shrieking about Obama being a communist more ridiculous than it already is; American history shows that there can be government policies that protect workers and offer some measure of a safety net without us descending into a Red Menace. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs were also pretty consistent with European-style social democracy.

Notably, Nixon would have been hounded out of his own party under today's GOP standards (as would Eisenhower, given his skepticism of the 'military-industrial complex' that today's Republicans kowtow to).

And this is not to mention other progressive movements: anti-slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, late 19th century populism, etc.

Finally, I think American political conservatism is also linked to the structure of our rural population. Outside of the antebellum Southern plantations, most people in rural areas were small landowners, not serfs or horribly exploited peasants. Therefore, the US never really had the powder keg of a repressed, restive rural population that has fueled so many socialist and/or radical left-wing political movements in Europe and Latin America; some social historians have pointed out that countries with a significant yeoman population tend to be more politically conservative. In addition, rural areas have had a disproportionate influence on American politics via the Senate. While sometimes they have found joint cause against, say, large industrial and financial interests, in general there has been a clear political divide between urbanized/industrial areas, and the states of the Old Confederacy/rural areas.

coonecb1

southsiderosie wrote: »

Notably, Nixon would have been hounded out of his own party under today's GOP standards (as would Eisenhower, given his skepticism of the 'military-industrial complex' that today's Republicans kowtow to).

That's the most troubling thing about U.S. politics. It seems there used to be two parties, Democrat and Republican, with extremists and moderates in both camps.

Now, there's one party still pretty much the same, and the other one is becoming ever more extreme, ever louder and ever less tolerant of any form of dissent within the ranks.

The thing is they don't recognise that the Obama administration is actually not too different from how the Republicans used to be, but when they consistently label him communist, nazi etc. they are changing the perceptions of left and right, slowly but surely.

It's scary to think where they're going with all this

demonspawn

coonecb1 wrote: »

The thing is they don't recognise that the Obama administration is actually not too different from how the Republicans used to be, but when they consistently label him communist, nazi etc. they are changing the perceptions of left and right, slowly but surely.

Considering every single member of his cabinet belongs to either the Bilderburg Group, the Trilateral Commission, or the Committee on Foreign Relations (many cabinet members belonging to all three), I'd say you're probably right.

There's is no left or right, Rep or Dem in the White House. You're either with "them" or you're not, and God help you if you're not.

CokaColumbo

Left wing, liberal ideologies are very pervasive in universities, the media and Hollywood/Show-biz in the USA. People scream about the biased opinion pieces on FoxNews but never complain about the centre-left bias in most of the other news sources in general and the relatively far-left bias in MSNBC in particular.

The left is also very good at injecting the race card into American politics and the democrats are skilled at openly pandering to minorities, trying to turn them against republicans.

The left wasn't weak in 2008 but now it is. Most Americans want the democrats out of office because they are destroying America financially and it is clear that Obama got elected largely on empty-rhetoric in 2008; and in 2010 is entirely out of touch with what the U.S. people want.

By the by, I don't support Republicans. I think dems and the GOP are (broadly) different shades of the same colour. I support the Tea-Party movement.


*Edit:

demonspawn wrote: »

The anti-WTO protesters are (were) a threat to the bank accounts of many of the world's wealthiest people, and those people will commit murder in order to sustain their extravagant lifestyles.

It has been the ignorant "revolutionaries" whose misguided violence has resulted in the murder of innocent human beings, not the WTO.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8661385.stm

southsiderosie

CokaColumbo wrote: »

The left is also very good at injecting the race card into American politics and the democrats are skilled at openly pandering to minorities, trying to turn them against republicans.

I completely disagree with this for a number of reasons. First, while people on the left may play the "racist" card more than conservatives, many conservatives, especially in the south, are more than willing to play the race card in a different way - by demonizing minorities. Conservatives do a hell of a lot of 'dog whistling' - using coded language to refer derisively to people of color. Second, ethnic minorities' political affiliations aren't fixed over time; rather they tend to shift depending on their interests. Blacks voted Republican after emancipation (where they could vote), but shifted their support to Democrats because of the New Deal and Civil Rights legislation. Many more Hispanics voted Republican 10 years ago than will today, because of the way that Republicans have handled the immigration debate. Frankly I think a lot of Republicans are pretty stupid: blacks and Hispanics tend to be rather socially conservative and have high levels of church attendance, and if Republican leaders would disown the racist/xenophobic and very noisy section of their base, they would do much better with ethnic minorities in the long term...and Mexican-Americans are going to heavily outnumber reactionary over-50 white people in the next two decades.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

The left wasn't weak in 2008 but now it is. Most Americans want the democrats out of office because they are destroying America financially and it is clear that Obama got elected largely on empty-rhetoric in 2008; and in 2010 is entirely out of touch with what the U.S. people want.

I think the left was pretty weak in 2008. Obama did very well with centrist Dems and independent voters. He's pretty much lost that demographic, and the left is mad at him for not being lefty enough. I would say he's screwed, but it depends on who the GOP candidate is.

CokaColumbo

southsiderosie wrote: »

I completely disagree with this for a number of reasons. First, while people on the left may play the "racist" card more than conservatives, many conservatives, especially in the south, are more than willing to play the race card in a different way - by demonizing minorities. Conservatives do a hell of a lot of 'dog whistling' - using coded language to refer derisively to people of color. Second, ethnic minorities' political affiliations aren't fixed over time; rather they tend to shift depending on their interests. Blacks voted Republican after emancipation (where they could vote), but shifted their support to Democrats because of the New Deal and Civil Rights legislation. Many more Hispanics voted Republican 10 years ago than will today, because of the way that Republicans have handled the immigration debate. Frankly I think a lot of Republicans are pretty stupid: blacks and Hispanics tend to be rather socially conservative and have high levels of church attendance, and if Republican leaders would disown the racist/xenophobic and very noisy section of their base, they would do much better with ethnic minorities in the long term...and Mexican-Americans are going to heavily outnumber reactionary over-50 white people in the next two decades.

Conservatives do not do a lot of dog whistling. They dislike Obama and the democrats because, by American standards, their policies are socialist; and socialism is abhorrent to many Americans. The left has done everything it can to mischaracterise this abhorrence of socialism, Obama, and Big Government in general, as mere racist resentment on the part of white extremists, i.e. accuse them of dog whistling (just one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3dFh8YYd70).

The left went after the Tea Party, first accusing its gatherings of being violent. When it became clear that Tea Party gatherings were demonstrably peaceful and non-violent, they declared the Tea Party to have a racist core; they never provided a shred of proof (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x67xLQiMp6Q).
Furthermore, people of all race are welcome at Tea Party gatherings. This has been completely ignored by everybody who doesn't support the T.P. To black leftists however, these right wing minorities are nothing more than "Uncle Toms."

I should have clarified; when I said that democrats are good at pandering to minorities, I meant in the present time. Events like the Arizona Bill, and comments made by Obama (skip to 2:00. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh-yR1HWkbM) and Reid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPoWvXYllSc). These are just individual examples but it is clear that the side which injects race into the political debate, whether it be for electoral gains or as a result of white-guilt, is the Left.

What do you mean by "...if Republican leaders would disown the racist/xenophobic and very noisy section of their base..." Do you have any examples or proof of this?

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think the left was pretty weak in 2008. Obama did very well with centrist Dems and independent voters. He's pretty much lost that demographic, and the left is mad at him for not being lefty enough. I would say he's screwed, but it depends on who the GOP candidate is.

In my opinion, the President has been too lefty in his role. For all intents and purposes the man is a socialist. He is a radical leftist and the U.S. people don't like that. So they are going to kick out all the democrats in November, please god, and unless Obama starts acting in accordance with the wishes of his fellow Americans, he will not have a second term in office.

southsiderosie

CokaColumbo wrote: »

They dislike Obama and the democrats because, by American standards, their policies are socialist; and socialism is abhorrent to many Americans.

Please define socialist. Frankly, I don't think most people in American even know what a socialist is. I find it ironic that so many of the people who claim to hate socialism and think that spending money on government programs is bad seem to change their tune when it is for their Medicare entitlement (which is the most 'socialist' government program in the US, and also one of the most popular).

CokaColumbo wrote: »

The left went after the Tea Party, first accusing its gatherings of being violent. When it became clear that Tea Party gatherings were demonstrably peaceful and non-violent, they declared the Tea Party to have a racist core; they never provided a shred of proof (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x67xLQiMp6Q)...Furthermore, people of all race are welcome at Tea Party gatherings. This has been completely ignored by everybody who doesn't support the T.P. To black leftists however, these right wing minorities are nothing more than "Uncle Toms."

I wouldn't call them violent, but they definitely attract a large number of nutters. And I generally find them to be a bunch of hypocrites - where were these people when the Bush administration was spending money like water and creating the monstrosity that is not the DHS?

That said, I wouldn't feel welcome given some of the signs I have seen at Tea Party events. But since I don't support their agenda anyway, I suppose it doesn't matter. Oh, and If by black leftists, you mean the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world, here's a hint: most of us stopped paying attention to them a long time ago. :P

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I should have clarified; when I said that democrats are good at pandering to minorities, I meant in the present time...it is clear that the side which injects race into the political debate, whether it be for electoral gains or as a result of white-guilt, is the Left.

Both sides inject race into the debate for electoral gains. The difference is, Democrats do it to pander to blacks and Latinos, and Republicans do it to pander to white people.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

What do you mean by "...if Republican leaders would disown the racist/xenophobic and very noisy section of their base..." Do you have any examples or proof of this?

There has been a long-running debate within the GOP about its approach to Latinos. As this article points out, even conservative Latinos are horrified by the behavior of GOP elected officials around immigration. However, I think this data makes my point:

The jostling among minority Republicans comes as the party seeks to broaden its appeal beyond an aging, shrinking, and regionalizing base. Steele made that promise a centerpiece of his campaign for chairman, but Republicans have yet to seriously engage in the task of wooing back Hispanic voters, some 44% of whom, according to exit polls, voted for President George W. Bush in 2004.

Hispanics, whose growing power could put much of the West and any plausible road to the White House out of reach for the GOP, fled the party amid the charged 2005 battle over federal immigration reform legislation, and could not be wooed back even by pro-immigration Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who won just 31% of their votes.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

In my opinion, the President has been too lefty in his role. For all intents and purposes the man is a socialist. He is a radical leftist and the U.S. people don't like that. So they are going to kick out all the democrats in November, please god, and unless Obama starts acting in accordance with the wishes of his fellow Americans, he will not have a second term in office.

Obama is not a socialist, and he is definitely not a radical leftist. If he were, from a policy standpoint, he would have expanded Medicare downwards to put everyone in a universal system, placed salary caps on corporate executives, pushed for far more radical environmental legislation, and not hired half of his economic team from Goldman Sachs. If you actually pay attention to the left wing, rather than the left wing through the Fox News filter, in their view, Obama has been too conservative and pro-corporate. There are varied wishes among Americans, and he doesn't seem to please anyone.

CokaColumbo

southsiderosie wrote: »

Please define socialist. Frankly, I don't think most people in American even know what a socialist is. I find it ironic that so many of the people who claim to hate socialism and think that spending money on government programs is bad seem to change their tune when it is for their Medicare entitlement (which is the most 'socialist' government program in the US, and also one of the most popular).

southsiderosie wrote: »

Obama is not a socialist, and he is definitely not a radical leftist. If he were, from a policy standpoint, he would have expanded Medicare downwards to put everyone in a universal system, placed salary caps on corporate executives, pushed for far more radical environmental legislation, and not hired half of his economic team from Goldman Sachs. If you actually pay attention to the left wing, rather than the left wing through the Fox News filter, in their view, Obama has been too conservative and pro-corporate. There are varied wishes among Americans, and he doesn't seem to please anyone.

I regretfully concede that I was too quick to slap the label of socialist on Obama. As Ron Paul states, and as you describe, the man is more of a statist and crony-capitalist. The thing is, his administration, in such a short amount of time, has radically increased the scope of government in society and the role of legislators in people's lives. I know that is not socialism- that was an overstatement on my part. I do however maintain that he is a radical-leftist who has no conception of limited government.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I wouldn't call them violent, but they definitely attract a large number of nutters. And I generally find them to be a bunch of hypocrites - where were these people when the Bush administration was spending money like water and creating the monstrosity that is not the DHS?

That said, I wouldn't feel welcome given some of the signs I have seen at Tea Party events. But since I don't support their agenda anyway, I suppose it doesn't matter. Oh, and If by black leftists, you mean the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world, here's a hint: most of us stopped paying attention to them a long time ago.

You see the thing is, the Bush administration wasn't going mental with money during a recession. He increased spending at a time when the U.S. government could, ostensibly, afford to maintain a deficit. Now though, the recession is here and Obama is making no attempts to curtail spending- in fact the Dems. are deliberately sky-rocketing public spending in some delirious Keynesian fantasy that it will somehow stop the recession.
If Bush was killing America financially like the Dems. are now, I see no reason why a Tea Party wouldn't exist. After all, the Tea Party claims no allegiance to any party.

And no, I'm not talking about Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, I'm talking about ordinary blacks and leftist community leaders. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=10303032
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8vp4BYoAJE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEo4JEaBSgo (this is about gay Tea Partiers but the idea is the same)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/5_eyewitness_examples_proving.html (From a black T.P. member).

southsiderosie wrote: »

Both sides inject race into the debate for electoral gains. The difference is, Democrats do it to pander to blacks and Latinos, and Republicans do it to pander to white people.

How do Republicans do that? You know, its not O.K. to make such a claim and not provide any examples to support it. How do Republicans specifically pander to white people? This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/us/politics/05blacks.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) may go someway in disproving your idea. And would you believe it, this one's not even from the Fox News Filter!

southsiderosie wrote: »

There has been a long-running debate within the GOP about its approach to Latinos. As this article points out, even conservative Latinos are horrified by the behavior of GOP elected officials around immigration. However, I think this data makes my point:

Again, you have claimed that the Republican party consists, in part, of a racist and xenophobic base. I asked for examples of these deplorable traits and the best you can do is provide an article in which, get this, the GOP gave a position to a black guy instead of a Latino. Also, the Arizona immigration is not racist or xenophobic. It mirrors the Federal Law and specifically outlaws racial profiling. It is also supported by most Americans, according to every reputable poll taken, so don't lump this on republicans!

To make the claim of racism is very serious. You also accused "many conservatives" of "demonising minorities... with coded language." Will you please give evidence for this? Its so tiring to hear the left spewing unsubstantiated allegations of racism without making the effort to give examples.

demonspawn

CokaColumbo wrote: »

*Edit:


It has been the ignorant "revolutionaries" whose misguided violence has resulted in the murder of innocent human beings, not the WTO.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8661385.stm

Comparing what happened in Seattle and what happened in Greece is absolutely ridiculous. One was a non-violent protest where a few Starbucks windows were broken, the other was an all-out riot (which was long overdue). I feel very bad for the families of those people, it should never have gone that far but when your life is sold out from under you, you can go a bit mental.

The only ignorance being shown is by supporters of a global regime that's been responsible for death and destruction around the world.

steelcityblues

The talk of 'left' and 'right' in US politics is often smoke and mirrors. What you have in Washington is a cabal of centralist, populist, unconstitutional morons, whom enough of the population will still scarily go along enough with,if they do/say the 'right' things. This charade will continue in the autumn elections now, and expect a lot of guff but little real action from these guys.

People who didn't really see through another chancer like Obama back in 08, and now feel almost crushed, would not exactly be the types I would ask to give me marriage, careers or dating advice, lol!

Denerick

demonspawn wrote: »

The anti-WTO protesters are (were) a threat to the bank accounts of many of the world's wealthiest people, and those people will commit murder in order to sustain their extravagant lifestyles.

The only thing that anti WTO protesters were/are capable of accomplishing is provoking amusement in the general public.

demonspawn

Denerick wrote: »

The only thing that anti WTO protesters were/are capable of accomplishing is provoking amusement in the general public.

The meetings were canceled and many delegates witnessed the brutality of the U.S. police force. Job well done in my opinion.

Denerick

demonspawn wrote: »

The meetings were canceled and many delegates witnessed the brutality of the U.S. police force. Job well done in my opinion.

Are we thinking of the same people here?

demonspawn

Denerick wrote: »

Are we thinking of the same people here?

lol Great pic.

But yes, they managed to have the meeting canceled as delegates weren't able to leave their hotels. Now whether that's because of the actual protest or the fear of being mistaken for a protester and having their skulls cracked I can only speculate.

There's a pretty good film called "This Is What Democracy Looks Like" that explains a bit more about what happened that week in Seattle. You can find it here to download. It's a documentary so don't worry about the copyright fascists busting your door down. You'll need a torrent client to download it though.

southsiderosie

CokaColumbo wrote: »

You see the thing is, the Bush administration wasn't going mental with money during a recession. He increased spending at a time when the U.S. government could, ostensibly, afford to maintain a deficit...

A fiscal conservative with a basic understanding of economics would engage in counter-cyclical spending - a good example of this is the Socialist Chilean government, which saved its copper revenues when times were good, and are now in a position to cushion the blow of the global economic downturn (and the fact that they were socialists and the Bush administration was ostensibly conservative is an indication that being fiscally prudent is not necessarily a left-right issue!). This is not to mention the fact that Bush took the country into war with the fantasy that oil revenues from Iraq would pay for it all. Launching two wars while cutting taxes was fiscal lunacy.

Finally, I don't believe for a second that there would be tea party protests if this were Bush rather than Obama. If you truly believe in small government and fiscal prudence, then there should have been mass protests against the expansion of Medicare drug benefits, the creation of DHS, the establishment of No Child Left Behind, etc.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

And no, I'm not talking about Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson...

I agree that many black conservatives get heat from other blacks who overwhelmingly vote Democrat. But I think the true bile is reserved for those who are perceived as letting themselves be used as tokens by the GOP; Michael Steele, for example. Whereas someone like Colin Powell never really got a lot of heat for being a Republican (although his involvement with the Bush administration has certainly tainted his legacy).

CokaColumbo wrote: »

How do Republicans do that? ... Its so tiring to hear the left spewing unsubstantiated allegations of racism without making the effort to give examples.

Its so tiring to constantly have to refer conservatives back to their dirty history of getting in bed with racists and xenophobes for short-term electoral gain. The links I provided earlier were statements by conservatives within the GOP voicing alarm at xenophobia and racism within the party and the base - i.e. this is not some liberal smear, it's true believers who are decrying the situation. The focus wasn't on the party infighting, if you read past the first paragraph of the Steele article - it's that minorities within the party see the demonization of Hispanics as detrimental to their electoral success in the long-term. Conservative Hispanics aren't opposed to immigration control, but they are opposed to the kind of language being used to describe Mexican immigrants - language that has gone mainstream among many conservatives. And GOP strategists have been warning for the last 10 years that it makes no sense to pander to the fears of older whites in rural areas, when the demographic trajectory of the country is increasingly young, non-white, and urban. This is the debate within the conservative movement and the GOP - not among liberals, who are delighted to see the right-wing crazies and their apologists driving Hispanics into the arms of the Democratic party.

As for dog whistling, here is a prime example: Ronald Reagan, launching his presidential campaign with a speech on "states rights" from Neshoba County, Mississippi. Lee Atwater was a master of this dark art, and the whole "Southern Strategy" was built around it.

I am not white, and I have voted for Republican candidates at a state and local level in the past. And I quite liked the 2000 version of John McCain (2008, not so much). But I think the passive acceptance - and worse, the active encouragement - of racist, ignorant, and xenophobic sentiment and politics among conservatives (not necessarily Republicans; I am including the Dixiecrats and their legacy here) - would preclude me from supporting Republicans in national level politics. Sadly, the kind of Republicans who I would be willing to vote for would be drummed out of the party these days, tagged as "RINOS" and socialists. Frankly, I think American politics could benefit from having the likes of Chuck Hegel (who received huge support from black voters, by the way) in the Congress, but these are exactly the kind of people who are increasingly disillusioned by American politics, and the GOP in particular.

billy the squid

The problem is that progressives in the US are not selling their message as well as those on the right.

All this wankery about big government yet the message that the right has brought in some of the biggest government is a message which seems to have been lost.

You can't get much bigger government than the Patriot Act,

The right whines about how Obama is going to take their guns away, when in reality the only president to ever take guns away was George W Bush, ordering that those in New Orleans be relieved of their guns after Katrina.

The massive deficit in the US is a result of 10 year tax cuts brought in by Bush, cuts which are due to expire next year. there is also the two wars,

They entered Iraq to free the muslims living there, yet the freedom of muslims in the US is being attacked throughout the US.

coonecb1

billy the squid wrote: »

The problem is that progressives in the US are not selling their message as well as those on the right.

All this wankery about big government yet the message that the right has brought in some of the biggest government is a message which seems to have been lost.

You can't get much bigger government than the Patriot Act,

The right whines about how Obama is going to take their guns away, when in reality the only president to ever take guns away was George W Bush, ordering that those in New Orleans be relieved of their guns after Katrina.

The massive deficit in the US is a result of 10 year tax cuts brought in by Bush, cuts which are due to expire next year. there is also the two wars,

They entered Iraq to free the muslims living there, yet the freedom of muslims in the US is being attacked throughout the US.

Bang on the money. The Dems seem to have trouble delivering these kinds of truths in a clear, united voice.

The Republicans are experts at soundbites which are then repeated ad nauseum on Fox, "Big Government", "Left wing radical", "Government takeover", "Elitist liberals" etc. etc.