Liberals Are Turning Into Fascists, Says … Piers Morgan?

[Revoltingest]

I am quite progressive so it may seem that way to some, hopefully I will inspire you to expand your understandings.

Apparently, it's not enuf to be progressive...one must belong to some club.
Btw, I test as over 90% progressive, but they won't let me in either.
In the Liberal Only forum, progressives are often given the boot.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Calling them "fascists" might be a bit too much. Sure, there are plenty of liberals who are rather stubborn and rigid in their thinking - that's a human trait. My main complaint about liberals is that they've changed over the years. They're not really like the liberals of old - the kind who used to care about working people, the downtrodden, etc. They were the kind who looked more deeply at problems and not just at superficialities or surface-level solutions.

PC and similar manipulations of language are a perfect example of this. They think that by changing the language, that will somehow change the condition they're trying to correct, but it's just an illusion. They're only fooling themselves.

They also sold out to big business, but rather than admit to this and recant their pro-Wall Street agenda (since they love the money so much), the only thing they can think to do is ratchet up the PC and double-down on identity politics.

Liberals don't have to become fascists. They're not very good at it anyway. What they should do is become hardcore radical socialists. At the very least, that might give them the clarity they so badly need right now.

That's the whole thing. What we're seeing today is the fact that they are not Blue Dog Democrats anymore. They've become something far more sinister and dangerous for this country and people are noticing it.

 

[Stanyon]

Apparently, it's not enuf to be progressive...one must belong to some club.
Btw, I test as over 90% progressive, but they won't let me in either.
In the Liberal Only forum, progressives are often given the boot.

A fascist boot!

 

[Revoltingest]

A fascist boot!

I suppose one could accuse some of imperious behavior.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Calling them "fascists" might be a bit too much. Sure, there are plenty of liberals who are rather stubborn and rigid in their thinking - that's a human trait. My main complaint about liberals is that they've changed over the years. They're not really like the liberals of old - the kind who used to care about working people, the downtrodden, etc. They were the kind who looked more deeply at problems and not just at superficialities or surface-level solutions.

Conservatives have changed just as much over the same period. The problem doesn't stem from having liberal or conservative viewpoints, it stems from too rigid adherence to party platforms, be they Democratic and Republican, in the US, or Liberal and Conservative (and others) in Canada. This is the natural result of knee-jerk towing of the "party line," as parties try to differentiate themselves from one another. As I said earlier, what the word "liberal" means to me would very likely have seemed pretty good to the Republican Abraham Lincoln.

Even now, look how Republicans are sanctioning the ramping up of public debt, which surely, in times of peace, is not how they would once of behaved. Earlier Republicans would be shocked, I tell you, shocked!

Liberals don't have to become fascists. They're not very good at it anyway. What they should do is become hardcore radical socialists. At the very least, that might give them the clarity they so badly need right now.

I think what Liberals should do now is remind themselves of what "liberal" means, and frame their policies and platforms accordingly.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Apparently, it's not enuf to be progressive...one must belong to some club.
Btw, I test as over 90% progressive, but they won't let me in either.
In the Liberal Only forum, progressives are often given the boot.

On the other hand, I, as a Liberal, would never think to try to post in a "Liberal Only Forum."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think part of the problem in the US is the two-party system that you have. It means that many people (in both parties) don't really fit at all neatly. Way up north where I live, we have another, decidedly socialist party that those on the far left of Nancy Pelosi are welcomed into. They're called the "New Democratic Party." They never get to form a government, but the Liberal part that DOES often form government in Canada (the majority of the time since the beginning of the 20th century), is free of them, and thus can be more effective centrist in the party platform. And we've had another new party (People's Party of Canada) split off from the Conservatives, much further to the right. They probably won't win any seats in the House, or if they do, they'll still be marginal. But again, it allows the remaining Conservative party to speak to the more solidly central and sensible conservative members of society.

And it allows, if they can get elected anywhere, for those voices on the fringes to at least be heard, without too badly interfering with the more centrist parties' agendas. All in all, not a bad thing, really.

 

[Stevicus]

That's the whole thing. What we're seeing today is the fact that they are not Blue Dog Democrats anymore. They've become something far more sinister and dangerous for this country and people are noticing it.

There are still some Blue Dog Democrats around. They just don't get noticed quite as much. But there aren't any Democrats like FDR, Truman, or JFK anymore. Those guys would be turning in their graves if they could see what their party has become.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There are still some Blue Dog Democrats around. They just don't get noticed quite as much. But there aren't any Democrats like FDR, Truman, or JFK anymore. Those guys would be turning in their graves if they could see what their party has become.

They are the only ones that I can still call Democrats.

List of members of the Blue Dog Coalition - Wikipedia

They are just a shell since the party takeover by the likes of socialist Sanders and friends.

 

[Stevicus]

Conservatives have changed just as much over the same period. The problem doesn't stem from having liberal or conservative viewpoints, it stems from too rigid adherence to party platforms, be they Democratic and Republican, in the US, or Liberal and Conservative (and others) in Canada. This is the natural result of knee-jerk towing of the "party line," as parties try to differentiate themselves from one another. As I said earlier, what the word "liberal" means to me would very likely have seemed pretty good to the Republican Abraham Lincoln.

Even now, look how Republicans are sanctioning the ramping up of public debt, which surely, in times of peace, is not how they would once of behaved. Earlier Republicans would be shocked, I tell you, shocked!

I think what Liberals should do now is remind themselves of what "liberal" means, and frame their policies and platforms accordingly.

A lot of voters have rejected both parties and registered as independents. Many more simply don't vote at all. There's a popular notion among many in the body politic that both parties are essentially the same, with just a few cosmetic differences and token disagreement on a few "safe" issues just to make things interesting and to keep the public distracted.

Both parties also contribute to this illusion by painting the opposition as a bunch of "deplorables" or "radicals" - to make them appear vastly different from each other. However, the trouble with painting one's opposition as extreme and/or "the worst thing in the world" is that some people actually start to believe it.

 

[Shad]

Hoo-boy!

Liberals are turning into fascists, says ... Piers Morgan?

Clickbait title. Piers never said that the writer of the article did.