View Full Version : Are Turning Left?
Given some recent developments, is it safe to say the US is turning left? People like Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, who were unapologetically against gay marriage in 2008 are now ostentatiously celebrating the recent SCOTUS decision. The high court also decides to uphold the most redistributive law since the New Deal based on the “intent” rather than the letter of the law. The overwhelmingly pasty-faced commentariat questions whether Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley or Bobby Jindal are truly Hispanic, Sikh or Indian, based on their ideology rather than their genes.
Are we in for a wave of legal and tax crackdowns on charities, churches and private schools who try to act on their unfashionable beliefs? Is the Regulatory State now in the ascendant? Has the pursuit of happiness become strictly a team sport?
Should the 2016 election be viewed as a referendum on the past eight years, or even as a possible repudiation of the Reagan Revolution?
Reagan Revolution? You mean the one that gave millions of people in illegally in this country a path to citizenship? The one that mandated hospitals open their ER's even to those who would be completely unable to pay for services rendered?
I think the gay marriage, like Loving vs. Virginia was just an idea whose time had finally come.
As for the other ruling Obamacare would have remained in place regardless, just like it did after the Medicare ruling.
ApatheticNoMore
6-30-15, 1:34pm
We're headed for corporate dictatorship, Fast Track passed, next stop the TPP, TTIP then corporations have the final say and veto power over all our laws.
iris lilies
6-30-15, 6:40pm
Sure, it's all going to the toilet, haha, or Leftie.
i will not be sweating any White House run because it's highly unlikely a Republican will win it unless Rand Paul can somehow wrest control of the Republican Party.
i will likely vote Libertarian from now on, a losing proposition. But, I am OUT of the two party shindig. If the Republican Party won't seize this time to embrace the libertarian arm they are fools.
Sure, it's all going to the toilet, haha, or Leftie.
i will not be sweating any White House run because it's highly unlikely a Republican will win it unless Rand Paul can somehow wrest control of the Republican Party.
i will likely vote Libertarian from now on, a losing proposition. But, I am OUT of the two party shindig. If the Republican Party won't seize this time to embrace the libertarian arm they are fools.
That's the problem, isn't it? Stand on lofty principle or strive to thwart the negative developments you see coming.
For someone of my political sensibilities, the current trend seems disconcerting: valuing security over individual autonomy, increasing acceptance of ever-changing identity politics orthodoxy, viewing limited government and federalism as obstacles to "progress".
Warts and all, I still see the GOP as the best way to oppose the march of the all-fathering state. Nor do I see Mrs. Clinton as invincible.
Warts and all, I still see the GOP as the best way to oppose the march of the all-fathering state.
As do I, although I wish it were not so. It seems to me that we now live in an age of instant communication and the left controls the message while the majority of the proletariat can't be bothered by reason or cause/effect, favoring emotion to logic. The GOP establishment walks a fine line between pandering to the proles and upholding Republican principles, the further left the media prods us, the further away from those principles it drifts.
I'd love to see a blending of the Libertarian and Republican parties, with an emphasis on the Libertarian. I thought the Tea Party would fill that role although it proved unable to overcome the hostility of the Left and the entrenched GOP establishment. Still, the GOP sucks, but it's currently the only viable resistance to a complete take-over of the world's longest standing Constitutional Republic.
iris lilies
7-1-15, 11:04am
That's the problem, isn't it? Stand on lofty principle or strive to thwart the negative developments you see coming.
For someone of my political sensibilities, the current trend seems disconcerting: valuing security over individual autonomy, increasing acceptance of ever-changing identity politics orthodoxy, viewing limited government and federalism as obstacles to "progress".
Warts and all, I still see the GOP as the best way to oppose the march of the all-fathering state. Nor do I see Mrs. Clinton as invincible.
Color me surprised that Hilary is having such trouble within her own party. I think Alan suggested recently that she may not even be the candidate for her party, and it is looking that way. She will have trouble in the general election with all ofmthismrecent stuff coming out.
My thoughts on the two party system, sorry if I'm repeating myself:
The democrats plan to give my money to poor people. The republicans plan to give my money to rich people. Either way my money disappears.
My view is the corporate/rich power arm is more powerful than the poor/socialist one, I don't want to cede more control and power to those who already have too much. I identify more with the needs of the poor, which seem to be needs of people, and less with the needs of The Economy and Corporate Dictatorship.
I typically vote democrat because of LDahl's paradox - if it's staying true to lofty ideals v. mitigating the worst of two likely evils, I'll vote mitigation. I still wish for a system in which I could put my "first vote" to the candidate I liked the best, and my "contingent vote" to the least despicable major party candidate.
Lol, the new party platform: Vote for Least Despicable - Me!
ETA: are we moving Left? Well we've been allemanding right for about 30 years now, so if we're sashaying a bit the other way, it sounds like a correction to me.
http://icons.iconarchive.com/icons/designbolts/despicable-me-2/icons-390.jpg
Color me surprised that Hilary is having such trouble within her own party. I think Alan suggested recently that she may not even be the candidate for her party, and it is looking that way. She will have trouble in the general election with all ofmthismrecent stuff coming out.
What's funny about this is the media leaving out any mention of why - Sanders. Reporting on the Republican side looks like a zoo given the number of people that tossed their hat into the ring - but they aren't saying much of anything about the field of candidates on the Democrat side.
What's funny about this is the media leaving out any mention of why - Sanders. Reporting on the Republican side looks like a zoo given the number of people that tossed their hat into the ring - but they aren't saying much of anything about the field of candidates on the Democrat side.
Since a majority of media outlets tend to lean left I suppose the current approach makes sense. If they portray the entire GOP as a bumbling heard that can't agree on anything it should ultimately help add some luster to the any Democratic candidate. Given the current state of GOP candidacy it would be hard to paint any other picture even if your chosen network leans decidedly right. Right now British oddsmakers don't even have a really good guess who will be the last man standing in Cleveland. (So far its Jeb Bush at 7:4 if anyone's interested.)
What's funny about this is the media leaving out any mention of why - Sanders. Reporting on the Republican side looks like a zoo given the number of people that tossed their hat into the ring - but they aren't saying much of anything about the field of candidates on the Democrat side.
It is funny. We get the New York Times analyzing Marco Rubio's wife's traffic tickets while dismissing any number of HRC's issues as too trivial to comment on. Bernie Sanders might as well be running for President of Bulgaria. It's like they're trying to drop him down the memory hole along with Hilary's hard drive. Her strategy seems to be to say as little as possible outside scripted events she can control. This is only made possible by a fawning, neutered media.
We're headed for corporate dictatorship, Fast Track passed, next stop the TPP, TTIP then corporations have the final say and veto power over all our laws.
That has become my biggest worry as well. I don't think it has as much to do with left or right as it does with simply too much government. Sanders is the only major party candidate railing against corporate global domination (and everything else associated with the status quo). IF the GOP stays as fractured as it is and IF millennials come out in force for Sanders it actually could prove to be a very interesting election cycle. But November 8, 2016 is a looooooooooooong time from now.
Regarding the OP, I'm not sure if the US is turning left or not. Certainly there have been some big swings that direction in a few areas, but I'm not so sure about it in the satellite view. I know that personally I've moved that direction, but it is purely a matter of defining my own priorities and not really because of anything done by any candidate or party. For example, I've always labeled myself as a fiscal conservative. That's not because I necessarily opposed any benefit or program, but because I don't think its unreasonable to ask how much something will cost and how we will pay for it BEFORE we get the ball rolling. I still believe that, but in a world where everything will be paid for in worthless 2045 dollars running a deficit has moved down the list of things I will wring my hands over.
In the end I just don't really believe that it will make a big difference which party is in charge of what. The government is going to get more invasive, personal liberty will get more constrained, corporate influence will get even more disproportionate, the straws will keep piling up on the back of the economically disadvantaged camel, etc. I hate to play the Donny Downer part, but its difficult for me to come to any other conclusion right now. If I thought swinging widely to the left would solve those problems I would do it in a NY minute, but I think it won't really accomplish anything more than putting a different child's face on the poster.
I think this country is getting so soft, that it's going to become so weak and needy that people will be looking to move elsewhere. It's really become a circus..........and for the most part, that includes politicians AND the masses.
I think this country is getting so soft, that it's going to become so weak and needy that people will be looking to move elsewhere. It's really become a circus..........and for the most part, that includes politicians AND the masses.
Soft in what way? Military power? Intellectual heft? Financial strength? Culture? Political cohesiveness?
I'd say that the removal of personal responsibility from our daily lives combined with more and more government oversight of our 'welfare' weakens us. But I don't think anyone will be moving elsewhere. I think those masses will keep getting just enough koolaid to keep plodding along. Besides, where would anyone go?
Okay....I know I've heard Alan talk about personal responsibility. I agree about it too. But how do we make people more responsible? Do you let them starve? Do you quit giving them aid? I'm not being silly.......I'm serious. How do we force people to be responsible? And what if we DID force people to be responsible?........wouldn't there be a lot more crime, because some people just CAN'T be responsible. I think we're way too soft on crime. Maybe we should tell poor people who can't find jobs.......if they're hungry enough, they'll pick vegetables instead of having the illegal hispanics do it?
These problems have gone on for way too long, and now they're all inter-connected and would require massive change.
But......Let's list how we were require people to be more responsible. It would help me understand. It seems like some of the constitution, when carried out in today's world, is causing some of these problems. We're just too soft on everybody.
I'd say that the removal of personal responsibility from our daily lives combined with more and more government oversight of our 'welfare' weakens us.
Exactly! But that's only part of the problem. We now have a ruling political class and a judiciary, all three government branches, doing everything they can to increase dependence on government. When laws don't mean what they say, when the Constitution, the only check on unfettered government, is deemed to be obsolete because it does it's job too well, when state and individual sovereignty is forcefully subjugated to the will of special interests/most vocal, when the cost of buying voter influence is placed on the back of our grandchildren, the experiment in self governance is over.
Exactly! But that's only part of the problem. We now have a ruling political class and a judiciary, all three government branches, doing everything they can to increase dependence on government. When laws don't mean what they say, when the Constitution, the only check on unfettered government, is deemed to be obsolete because it does it's job too well, when state and individual sovereignty is forcefully subjugated to the will of special interests/most vocal, when the cost of buying voter influence is placed on the back of our grandchildren, the experiment in self governance is over.
I would say that in many ways the problem may be more cultural than political. Politicians can't pander unless voters are buying what they're selling. We can't trade liberty for the (illusion of) security unless we're willing participants in the transaction.
I would say that in many ways the problem may be more cultural than political. Politicians can't pander unless voters are buying what they're selling. We can't trade liberty for the (illusion of) security unless we're willing participants in the transaction.Absolutely. The dominant culture is the real culprit, ensuring that we'll eventually get what we deserve.
I completely agree that the root problem is cultural. The political elites simply take advantage of a situation that already exists. Granted that ruling class exacerbates the problem, but they didn't cause it. And now that we've determined that our laws are open to interpretation as needed all bets are off.
Okay....I know I've heard Alan talk about personal responsibility. I agree about it too. But how do we make people more responsible? Do you let them starve? Do you quit giving them aid? I'm not being silly.......I'm serious. How do we force people to be responsible? And what if we DID force people to be responsible?........wouldn't there be a lot more crime, because some people just CAN'T be responsible. I think we're way too soft on crime. Maybe we should tell poor people who can't find jobs.......if they're hungry enough, they'll pick vegetables instead of having the illegal hispanics do it?
These problems have gone on for way too long, and now they're all inter-connected and would require massive change.
But......Let's list how we were require people to be more responsible. It would help me understand. It seems like some of the constitution, when carried out in today's world, is causing some of these problems. We're just too soft on everybody.
We can't force anyone to be responsible and probably shouldn't try. I don't think we're too soft on all crime, just on the wrong kind of crime. It is insane that kids go to prison for dealing a few hundred bucks worth of pot when white collar criminals don't after stealing a few hundred million. I'm not jumping on a bandwagon for that cause, its just a very clear example of how we prioritize things in this country.
Our government keeps growing and it sustains that growth by consuming more and more of the things people used to automatically do for themselves. Social Security was originally supplemental retirement meaning you were still responsible for saving for yourself. Now it is all most people in the US have when they hit retirement age. We have, correctly, always had programs that would help anyone who is down. Now those programs are multi-generational institutions that do nothing to help people find alternatives, to be responsible for their own welfare, and everything to insure the recipients remain tied to the government teet. To blame the people caught in that spider's web is wrongheaded, it is a direct result of an overreaching government that realizes dependence is the shortest route to loyalty, however begrudgingly it is given. Loyal subjects whose most basic needs are covered (just barely, but always) are the least likely of all to rock the boat.
Loyal subjects whose most basic needs are covered (just barely, but always) are the least likely of all to rock the boat."It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." ~ Voltaire
Gardenarian
7-2-15, 1:57pm
I think there may be a slight correction going on, where Democrats actually start living up to their populist credo. The Republicans have become (some of them) more socially liberal.
Without campaign finance reform, the US will remain a corporatocracy.
I'm less fearful of the "corporatocracy" than I am of giving self-styled populists the power to trim back the first amendment like it was so much topiary.
“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”
- Friedrich von Hayek
ApatheticNoMore
7-2-15, 2:36pm
I think there may be a slight correction going on, where Democrats actually start living up to their populist credo.
no they are as bad as they have ever been, although the rhetoric may sometimes change
The Republicans have become (some of them) more socially liberal.
possibly
Without campaign finance reform, the US will remain a corporatocracy.
quite possibly even with campaign finance reform, if laws are continually overruled by corporate bodies due to trade agreements (existing ones but also especially TPP, TTIP). If the U.S. became utopia where politicians never got any corporate money ever, it is highly likely with these trade agreements they would still hesitate to do anything that might challenge corporate profits (you know including regulating them so they don't poison the gulf of Mexico and so on) if it means they must pay up based on investor state rulings for doing so.
I'm less fearful of the "corporatocracy" than I am of giving self-styled populists the power to trim back the first amendment like it was so much topiary.
I haven't participated in this thread because I generally think that "society is going to hell in a handbasket" has been consistently the view of at least some people throughout time and that this whole thread is pretty much a bunch of left handed exercises. But I WAS curious about this comment. I know you're not afraid of the 'corporatocracy' since you have already expressed your support for the TPP, but I'm curious how exactly you think the populists are trimming back the first amendment.
I haven't participated in this thread because I generally think that "society is going to hell in a handbasket" has been consistently the view of at least some people throughout time and that this whole thread is pretty much a bunch of left handed exercises. But I WAS curious about this comment. I know you're not afraid of the 'corporatocracy' since you have already expressed your support for the TPP, but I'm curious how exactly you think the populists are trimming back the first amendment.
I used the term "self-styled populists". Mrs. Clinton has said "We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccounted money out of it, once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment" And of course the President famously wagged his finger at the Supreme Court for having the temerity to rule against him in Citizens United on first amendment grounds.
I personally don’t think chipping away at free speech, no matter what the reason, is ultimately in the best interest of our democracy; just as I don’t think trade protectionism is in the long term best interest of our economy.
Color me surprised that Hilary is having such trouble within her own party. I think Alan suggested recently that she may not even be the candidate for her party, and it is looking that way. She will have trouble in the general election with all ofmthismrecent stuff coming out.
If I can toot my horn a little, I was one of the very few people in 2007 who never believed that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee. But in 2007 there were quite a few viable alternatives. Now, it is hard for me to see who else can be the nominee besides Hillary. It looks like a disturbingly weak field.
Don't get me wrong, she has my vote if she wins the nomination, but I am not crazy about the whole the prospect of it, at least for now.
That's the problem, isn't it? Stand on lofty principle or strive to thwart the negative developments you see coming.
If it makes you feel any better, many on the side feel the same way, too.
As do I, although I wish it were not so. It seems to me that we now live in an age of instant communication and the left controls the message while the majority of the proletariat can't be bothered by reason or cause/effect, favoring emotion to logic. The GOP establishment walks a fine line between pandering to the proles and upholding Republican principles, the further left the media prods us, the further away from those principles it drifts.
Who is the "proletariat" in this version of things? As for "favoring emotion over logic" wholly crow have you seem a Trump rally? There sure is a LOT of emotion there, and it isn't coming from a good place.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.