YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Figure it out and I'll give you a nice cookie, Daddy. There are VERY good reasons to do so.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is There a Real Left Wing in America?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I'll pass on the cookie and allow you to elaborate.
T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
I think he's trying to suggest that the left is involved in some sort of conspiracy to stage a coup, institute a secret new world order, or something of that nature, and therefore it doesn't want people looking at it what it's up to.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I have to give YmirGF the benefit of a doubt because it's simply goofy and unrealistic to paint leftists as some sort of diabolical Illuminati scheming in the shadows. Just like how some people try to paint jews and freemasons as some sort of super villains.
DrTCH
Member
How the hell does it make any sense for a political movement to intentionally disappear from public eye?
This person does not seem to understand the dynamics at work in the USA in recent years. First, many issues are rarely discussed. in public discourse...in the way of a kind of "gentlemen's agreement." An excellent example is NAFTA (and CAFTA). The "free trade" treaties have trumped regular American law, which is a problem from a theoretical standpoint. From a practical standpoint, they have interfered with American laws related to environmental regulation and labor. They have played a part in the dismantling of American production, and the economy in general. They have thoroughly thrashed the Mexican economy, leading to thousands of Mexican refugees relocating across the border, into the U.S. southwest states. These people have been branded as ILLEGAL ALIENS, but who would not cross a border if his livelihood had been disrupted and the move promised a better life for his family? Do you begin to see the mischief that a misuse of semantics can play?
The Bush administration was a thoroughly corrupt one and essentially fascist in character, but with some characteristics historically associated with the "left" too, such as overspending and large government. Similar in some ways to the Reagan administration, which promised a balancing of the budget, and small gov't, but did neither. Incidentally, presidents who claim to be "strict constructionists" are playing games. Strict constructionists are those who favor close adherence to a literal reading of constitutional provisions. These presidents---Reagan, Nixon and Bush--favored certain agendas, such as a tough on crime approach, the "war on drugs," absolute opposition to abortion, and jingoism. They also favored a very liberal reading and application of the "Commerce Clause" and "Necessary and Proper Clause," spelling enhancement of federal power, and a lessening of state power and sovereignty (and personal liberty). Historically, "rightists" have supported individual freedom, free enterprise, and the right of privacy. Yet, recent Republican presidents have favored the violation of privacy, compromise of due process and the rise of corporate capitalism..which opposes competition (and genuine free enterprise).
The Progressive Movement is usually associated with such things as welfare programs, civil rights, peace, transparency of gov't, labor rights, improving the quality of life...including equal opportunity and education, and innovation. Yet this movement has been a lie to some extent, in recent years. After all, Truman and Johnson prevailed over the Korean War and Vietnam War, respectively, and certainly Johnson was no proponent of transparency in gov't. And, Truman was responsible for dropping two nuclear bombs--hardly the act of a pacifist. Come to think of it, Democrats Wilson and FDR were "in the house" during WWI and WWII, also.
Yet, Johnson was certainly a progressive relative to the social and civil rights programs which he pushed through.
Now back to recent history. Americans voted out the Bush people, as they had become disgusted with the lies and wars, and because Mr. Obama promised major changes. Nonetheless, Obama has honored none of his promises...or what might be called the Progressive Tradition. He has embraced essentially the very same agenda as Bush-Cheney (Strong prosecution of three overseas wars and a domestic "War on Terror," with concommitant continuation of erosion of constitutional protections)...with a liberal gloss..in the form of really nice rhetoric and a push for a meaningful health care program. As the last turned out to be a sell-out to the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry, and that he ALSO bailed out Wall Street (but not the average citizen), this man is hardly a progressive in any meaningful sense. What's more, "Liberals" in Congress showed their true colors by refusing to impeach the Bush principals, and to challenge the illegal and lunatic wars which kept on, unabated (and the infernal "War on Terror" and "Patriot Act").
This is the mess we now have, with few true liberals or conservatives. And, this is exacerbated by some extreme rightists (lately called Neocons or Teabaggers), with many favoring the wars and Patriot Act, yet with many insisting on personal freedom and right to privacy and due process (and real free enterprise), too. My guess is that today's "Liberals" are so fearful of these people, who are extreme in SOME ways, that they are shaking in their boots about making any real changes, such as ending the wars. More important is the fact that those in power do not really WANT to end what the "powers that be" have ordained, which is obviously endless war, plenty of governmental spending, restriction of personal rights and the enslavement of everyone in America, save the Elite. And, the realization of what used to be called "statism," and what has come to be known as the "New World Order."
This person does not seem to understand the dynamics at work in the USA in recent years. First, many issues are rarely discussed. in public discourse...in the way of a kind of "gentlemen's agreement." An excellent example is NAFTA (and CAFTA). The "free trade" treaties have trumped regular American law, which is a problem from a theoretical standpoint. From a practical standpoint, they have interfered with American laws related to environmental regulation and labor. They have played a part in the dismantling of American production, and the economy in general. They have thoroughly thrashed the Mexican economy, leading to thousands of Mexican refugees relocating across the border, into the U.S. southwest states. These people have been branded as ILLEGAL ALIENS, but who would not cross a border if his livelihood had been disrupted and the move promised a better life for his family? Do you begin to see the mischief that a misuse of semantics can play?
The Bush administration was a thoroughly corrupt one and essentially fascist in character, but with some characteristics historically associated with the "left" too, such as overspending and large government. Similar in some ways to the Reagan administration, which promised a balancing of the budget, and small gov't, but did neither. Incidentally, presidents who claim to be "strict constructionists" are playing games. Strict constructionists are those who favor close adherence to a literal reading of constitutional provisions. These presidents---Reagan, Nixon and Bush--favored certain agendas, such as a tough on crime approach, the "war on drugs," absolute opposition to abortion, and jingoism. They also favored a very liberal reading and application of the "Commerce Clause" and "Necessary and Proper Clause," spelling enhancement of federal power, and a lessening of state power and sovereignty (and personal liberty). Historically, "rightists" have supported individual freedom, free enterprise, and the right of privacy. Yet, recent Republican presidents have favored the violation of privacy, compromise of due process and the rise of corporate capitalism..which opposes competition (and genuine free enterprise).
The Progressive Movement is usually associated with such things as welfare programs, civil rights, peace, transparency of gov't, labor rights, improving the quality of life...including equal opportunity and education, and innovation. Yet this movement has been a lie to some extent, in recent years. After all, Truman and Johnson prevailed over the Korean War and Vietnam War, respectively, and certainly Johnson was no proponent of transparency in gov't. And, Truman was responsible for dropping two nuclear bombs--hardly the act of a pacifist. Come to think of it, Democrats Wilson and FDR were "in the house" during WWI and WWII, also.
Yet, Johnson was certainly a progressive relative to the social and civil rights programs which he pushed through.
Now back to recent history. Americans voted out the Bush people, as they had become disgusted with the lies and wars, and because Mr. Obama promised major changes. Nonetheless, Obama has honored none of his promises...or what might be called the Progressive Tradition. He has embraced essentially the very same agenda as Bush-Cheney (Strong prosecution of three overseas wars and a domestic "War on Terror," with concommitant continuation of erosion of constitutional protections)...with a liberal gloss..in the form of really nice rhetoric and a push for a meaningful health care program. As the last turned out to be a sell-out to the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry, and that he ALSO bailed out Wall Street (but not the average citizen), this man is hardly a progressive in any meaningful sense. What's more, "Liberals" in Congress showed their true colors by refusing to impeach the Bush principals, and to challenge the illegal and lunatic wars which kept on, unabated (and the infernal "War on Terror" and "Patriot Act").
This is the mess we now have, with few true liberals or conservatives. And, this is exacerbated by some extreme rightists (lately called Neocons or Teabaggers), with many favoring the wars and Patriot Act, yet with many insisting on personal freedom and right to privacy and due process (and real free enterprise), too. My guess is that today's "Liberals" are so fearful of these people, who are extreme in SOME ways, that they are shaking in their boots about making any real changes, such as ending the wars. More important is the fact that those in power do not really WANT to end what the "powers that be" have ordained, which is obviously endless war, plenty of governmental spending, restriction of personal rights and the enslavement of everyone in America, save the Elite. And, the realization of what used to be called "statism," and what has come to be known as the "New World Order."
Last edited:
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Sorry to disappoint you, T-Dawg, but my thinking isn't quite that juvenile.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Welcome to RF, Doc. Give me a bit to analyze what you are saying. I'll get back to you later.How the hell does it make any sense for a political movement to intentionally disappear from public eye?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Yes, I know, it does seem to defy all reason. I understand that.How the hell does it make any sense for a political movement to intentionally disappear from public eye?
Well, I am hardly as expert as so many others apparently, so you will perhaps forgive my ignorance. Given your jaundiced account below I'd say that your understanding isn't that much greater.
Well that is certainly one of the more nuanced accounts I have read about this situation. You definitely earned points for originality.
I will admit that I am a bit perplexed on where to begin to respond to all this. You certainly do have an interesting take American political history, though a part of me feels like I have just read a piece penned by Ward Churchill.
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
I've known of a person or two in the past who felt so severely neglected they insisted on calling the emergency room because they thought they were dying. Well, they got the attention they wanted.
They will just as soon as you put on a tin foil hat.
Requia
Active Member
Individuals do not represent the whole.
There's Netroots. Not that they're an effective organization, but they exist.
Sure there is!
[youtube]ZW_NyS-1uVo[/youtube]
YouTube - Proud Marxist Socialists March at Left-Wing Protest in DC
dust1n
Zindīq
Pamphlets, publications and signs, oh my!
dust1n
Zindīq
Oh.. well yea, I agree.
They have no power or sway, though. Is this not what the article was getting at?
Requia
Active Member
i thought the article was saying there are no people on the left.
If it means that the left is being ignored to the point that nobody can tell you where it is, then I agree 100%.
Netroots isn't a secret because it wants to be a secret, its a secret because part of the strategy for keeping the left out of DC is to ignore it in the media.
If it means that the left is being ignored to the point that nobody can tell you where it is, then I agree 100%.
Netroots isn't a secret because it wants to be a secret, its a secret because part of the strategy for keeping the left out of DC is to ignore it in the media.
Smoke
Done here.
Amazon told me today that I might enjoy a book by Chris Hedges -- the guy who wrote the article in the OP. This certainly makes more sense than their recommendation of the latest John Grisham novel, since I've never read Grisham and don't have any plans to start. They have their hits and their misses.
Anyway, the book in question is Death of the Liberal Class. The product description says in part:
The last sentence is kind of fuzzy, and I hope the book is better edited than the product description. Anyway, I think I'll probably have this on my Kindle by midnight. I've been thinking about it for a couple hours, and I think I must read it.
Anyway, the book in question is Death of the Liberal Class. The product description says in part:
The Death of the Liberal Class examines the failure of the liberal class to confront the rise of the corporate state and the consequences of a liberalism that has become profoundly bankrupted. Hedges argues there are five pillars of the liberal establishment – the press, liberal religious institutions, labor unions, universities and the Democratic Party— and that each of these institutions, more concerned with status and privilege than justice and progress, sold out the constituents they represented. In doing so, the liberal class has become irrelevant to society at large and ultimately the corporate power elite they once served.
The last sentence is kind of fuzzy, and I hope the book is better edited than the product description. Anyway, I think I'll probably have this on my Kindle by midnight. I've been thinking about it for a couple hours, and I think I must read it.
Easy.
Those on the far left, seeing no one farther left than they, cry that there is no left.
From my warped perspective, there are hellacious hordes of lefties.
Criminy, we just drummed one out of office & replaced him with the even leftier Obama.
tomato1236
Ninja Master
It's interesting that these folks have associated their movement with the flag of a government which ultimately failed miserably.
It fits. They're even bigger failures than we Libertarians are.