The Left is Losing Because It is Not Confrontational Enough

[Heyo]

Republicans do it but nowhere as much as democrats do.

Republicans do it in areas or to people you don't care about.

 

[Stevicus]

I suspect the majority of voters don't want confrontational.

Also. when you're in power, you don't want confrontational. When your out of power, you do.
When the republicans were in power a few years back, they couldn't get any of their "right wing" policies passed either.

Personally, I've stopped having any reliance on government fixing problems.

I don't know if the voters want confrontation or not. It's obvious that many in the Democratic Party are willing to confront on some issues, but not anything that would be displeasing to their corporate overlords. That's why they still support outsourcing, it's why they still support our same old broken healthcare system, it's why they still support warmongering, it's why they oppose affordable housing, it's why they oppose legalizing marijuana, it's why they consistently fail to bring about any border or immigration reform.

But on the other hand, they show no shyness in confronting the GOP over abortion or replacement theory. In fact, they're confronting them rather vigorously, probably because Corporate America doesn't care about those issues.

 

[Stevicus]

Interesting, if not somewhat emotionally charged turn of phrase.



In the selected quotes above, I see a somewhat conflicting stance. You seem to see benefits of free trade with the US for lower-income countries (Mexico and somewhat extended to South and Central Americas), yet negatively frame free-trade as being a tool of neo-imperialist corporations, which I assume are bad actors from your point of view.

Not sure how you sense a conflicting stance. I didn't make any statement about the benefits of free trade. As far as I can tell, only the super wealthy benefit from it, while it's been a loss to US workers and manufacturing and opens up Mexico to exploitation.

What is your stance on free-trade policies? For? Against? If the standard of living of middle and lower income Americans stagnates, or declines, is this cost worth-while if a much greater number of people outside of the US see an appreciable decrease in overall poverty?

To answer your first question, I support fair trade with countries which have a wage structure and standard of living comparable to that of the United States. However, I also believe that anything that can be manufactured in the United States must be manufactured in the United States. The only things we should be importing are those things which can not be mined nor grown in the United States.

The importation of manufactured goods is prima facie evidence that we don't have the ability, the technology, or the industry to manufacture our own stuff - and that's a bad thing for a supposed "first world" economy which many claim the US to be. Look at how our government's economic myopia has screwed up the supply chains for just about everything. If we made everything in the U.S., we wouldn't have these problems. We also wouldn't have the stagnation in real wages which we've been seeing the past several decades.

However, I also pointed out that Mexico is our neighbor, ally, and a trading partner (with or without NAFTA), so I said it was incongruous for the factions which support free trade also support militarizing the border and treating the entire nation of Mexico as some sort "dangerous place" full of dragons and monsters that they must be walled off.

We can't fix the whole world, but we can focus on our own backyard.

You asked about immigration, and most of the immigration comes from our neighbor to the south. We wouldn't even be having this problem today if NAFTA boosted Mexico's standard of living as its original touters claimed it would. Since NAFTA has failed in that regard, then we need to look at other options.

Are you suggesting that ending free trade would negatively impact upon the standard of living of working class Americans? If so, then I would disagree with that. I think our reckless dive into globalism and free trade is the primary reason a great many Americans are facing difficult times right now. It was a bad mistake, although it wasn't our only mistake.

I think good arguments can be made to encourage policies that are beneficial to the well-being of all people, globally, and that improved global standards leads to global stability. However, we see historically that there is always great resistance for any group to surrender a perceived or actual advantage, and I think this will hold true for a majority of Americans. If the goal is to win national elections, paying lip service to "America First" will, unfortunately, always appeal to a large swath of the electorate. The Republicans have taken firm hold of this ground and it is working for them.

The Democrats can win back the blue collar vote if they put an effort into it, but the damage has been decades in the making. The Trump Republicans have taken hold of the America First platform and run with it, although the Republicans who still oppose Trump were never America Firsters. The Democrats can separate the wheat from the chaff by declaring that they, too, support America - but that includes ALL Americans, not just the wealthy or privileged classes.

 

[Stevicus]

That's because they aren't a working class party, and haven't been for at least 30 years. Their main platform is social "progress", secondary to that is the corporate economy; the working class barely gets a passing nod in the hallway for old time's sake.

Well, they used to be more pro-labor and more for working people, but they changed at some point. I think the terrible drubbings they took in '80, '84, and '88 ostensibly led them to believe that Americans were more favorable to a heavily pro-capitalist, pro-corporate, pro-business platform of the kind touted by Republicans.

 

[Stevicus]

Democrats need to lessen their compulsory oriented mandate by fiat mindset. Not increase it.

That's the way lawyers and judges operate in general. Democrats or Republicans, it doesn't matter. They both know how to game the system to make it do what they want it to. The only real difference between Democrats and Republicans in this regard is what issues or areas of life they want to dictate to people versus where they prefer it more laissez-faire.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If it's simple why can't you give strait answers?

Only to you I can't. Others see it well enough.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's the way lawyers and judges operate in general. Democrats or Republicans, it doesn't matter. They both know how to game the system to make it do what they want it to. The only real difference between Democrats and Republicans in this regard is what issues or areas of life they want to dictate to people versus where they prefer it more laissez-faire.

Thats a fair assessment. It seems revelant on how sandwiched one becomes between the two.

 

[Father Heathen]

Only to you I can't. Others see it well enough.

By others you mean those who eat from the same rw propaganda trough? Spoonfed vague notions that get gleefully gobbled down because they tickle the narrative just right?

 

[Stevicus]

Frankly the Democrats are in a no-win situation. With 66% of Republican voters who believe Trump really won in 2020 there is a huge problem of disinformation and stupidity. That doesn't;t leave many smart conservative voters, and of them, are they really going to be open to what Democrats propose as policies with all the disinformation coming from right wing media? They're just not going to know enough to make a sound decision on what is the best path for the USA.

And I don't see infighting among Democrats as a good thing. We are seeing infighting in the establishment Republicans and the few ethical Republicans, and they are suffering from inner turmoil. Democrats cover a huge range of interests. from the progressive to the political moderates. Republicans cover a very narrow range and can take advantage of their cohesion in that respect. The work is harder for Democrats and quibbling isn;t going to help.

There's a chance that democracy can collapse in 2024 if republicans win in certain "perfect storm" elections in 2022. If there is a collapse and republicans succeed in attaining power, then Democrats can afford to clean house. It's hard to know how much the US citizen knows of what republicans aim to do. Is the train moving and McConnell can't stop it?

I think Democrats need to continue to be the party of emotional stability and work on their own ethics and work to help the average citizen.

I think there's a great deal of inner turmoil in the country as a whole, so it's natural that this would be reflected in the composition of both parties.

Of course, there's always been a great deal of internal squabbling within the Democratic Party. Some of it was for obvious reasons, such as with the Dixiecrats, but it's also been the same divide between the progressive Democrats and the more moderate liberals in the party. FDR was an astute and shrewd politician who was able to unite these factions during World War 2, but after his death and the end of the war, those divisions started to unravel.

For their part, the Republicans turned (almost literally overnight) from the party of isolationists into the party of rabid interventionists and militarists. While they had been pretty much locked out of power by a solid 20 years of Democratic rule, they started to score points by turning up the anti-communist rhetoric and working the nation up into an absolute panic. The main reason the GOP was able to get back into power at all was because the Democrats further divided over the question of war and foreign policy.

On the economy, oddly enough, Republicans such as Eisenhower and Nixon were more Keynesian, more similar to FDR or LBJ. The so-called "Reagan Revolution" is what set the GOP on a more fiscally-reckless path, even though it could boast some temporary short-term gains (for a few at the top). The Democrats at first opposed it, but then, by the time of Clinton, seemed to go along with it.

Now, it seems to be almost a reversal, at least when looking at Trump causing the kind of tumultuous shift we're seeing within the GOP, mainly between the establishment Republicans versus the Trump Republicans who make it their thing to be "anti-establishment."

Corporate America and other such factions which depend upon political harmony and overall stability in society would tend to oppose Trump's ruptures, which might be why they would favor Democrats who would work towards that cause and would be friendly to their interests. The Democrats seem to believe that that's enough to win - but it was only just barely enough the last time around.

I'm not ready to call it quits on democracy, so I hope democracy still survives this election and in 2024. I don't think it's gotten that bad just yet, but...we have a system that's broken in multiple ways at all levels of government. Our government and political leadership, regardless of party, have failed large segments of the American populace. It should be a given that if things are neglected long enough and left to fester, then more and more people are going to get cranky about it.

Those are the things that people notice, because it's all around them. They see it every day. They see it in the news about hard times a comin'. They hear lip service from the Democrats, but it seems painfully obvious that they've run out of ideas. They have nothing new to bring to the table. Neither do the Republicans, as they've also been in Corporate America's other pocket all along. Except Trump added a new twist, since the Republicans believed that they were keeping positive control over the same bunch of people who, once upon a time, were known as Reagan's "Moral Majority." They knew how to handle that bunch back then, but it soon become a monster that grew out of their control.

It was the Republican Party's secret "inner asylum" that they thought they could keep under wraps and still win elections. Trump somehow become a part of that asylum, and he got a key which started letting the rest of the inhabitants out into the political maelstrom. This is their monster; they created it, with the full backing of Corporate America.

If the Democrats and some Republicans still want to save democracy, then we should take care to consider that there's a growing number of fanatics out there. Fanatics only win when the people are either desperate enough to follow anyone - or apathetic enough that they don't care about anything. Or a combination of both, which is what we seem to be facing now.

 

[Twilight Hue]

By others you mean those who eat from the same rw propaganda trough? Spoonfed vague notions that get gleefully gobbled down because they tickle the narrative just right?

That's about what I expected you would say.

Good day

 

[metis]

Hardly. The green deal forcing people to get evs , all the covid garbage ..

Mandate after mandate .... compulsory after compulsory.

Republicans do it but nowhere as much as democrats do.

It never ends.

Complete nonsense as both have issued mandates, which is what all governments do, btw. An example I can use with the Trump fiasco with his signing an e.o. mandating that no Muslims should be allowed to enter the US, which he rescinded days later and went to Obama's restrictions on 7 countries after he was told that the courts would declare his original e.o. unconstitutional. He also tried to override California's stricter emissions law. Etc. Etc.

IOW, he talked "conservative" but tried to rule like a neo-fascist, which he clearly is btw. But at least he was very successful in conning people like you, so I gotta give him "credit" for that.

 

[F1fan]

I think there's a great deal of inner turmoil in the country as a whole, so it's natural that this would be reflected in the composition of both parties.

Of course, there's always been a great deal of internal squabbling within the Democratic Party. Some of it was for obvious reasons, such as with the Dixiecrats, but it's also been the same divide between the progressive Democrats and the more moderate liberals in the party. FDR was an astute and shrewd politician who was able to unite these factions during World War 2, but after his death and the end of the war, those divisions started to unravel.

For their part, the Republicans turned (almost literally overnight) from the party of isolationists into the party of rabid interventionists and militarists. While they had been pretty much locked out of power by a solid 20 years of Democratic rule, they started to score points by turning up the anti-communist rhetoric and working the nation up into an absolute panic. The main reason the GOP was able to get back into power at all was because the Democrats further divided over the question of war and foreign policy.

On the economy, oddly enough, Republicans such as Eisenhower and Nixon were more Keynesian, more similar to FDR or LBJ. The so-called "Reagan Revolution" is what set the GOP on a more fiscally-reckless path, even though it could boast some temporary short-term gains (for a few at the top). The Democrats at first opposed it, but then, by the time of Clinton, seemed to go along with it.

Now, it seems to be almost a reversal, at least when looking at Trump causing the kind of tumultuous shift we're seeing within the GOP, mainly between the establishment Republicans versus the Trump Republicans who make it their thing to be "anti-establishment."

Corporate America and other such factions which depend upon political harmony and overall stability in society would tend to oppose Trump's ruptures, which might be why they would favor Democrats who would work towards that cause and would be friendly to their interests. The Democrats seem to believe that that's enough to win - but it was only just barely enough the last time around.

I'm not ready to call it quits on democracy, so I hope democracy still survives this election and in 2024. I don't think it's gotten that bad just yet, but...we have a system that's broken in multiple ways at all levels of government. Our government and political leadership, regardless of party, have failed large segments of the American populace. It should be a given that if things are neglected long enough and left to fester, then more and more people are going to get cranky about it.

Those are the things that people notice, because it's all around them. They see it every day. They see it in the news about hard times a comin'. They hear lip service from the Democrats, but it seems painfully obvious that they've run out of ideas. They have nothing new to bring to the table. Neither do the Republicans, as they've also been in Corporate America's other pocket all along. Except Trump added a new twist, since the Republicans believed that they were keeping positive control over the same bunch of people who, once upon a time, were known as Reagan's "Moral Majority." They knew how to handle that bunch back then, but it soon become a monster that grew out of their control.

It was the Republican Party's secret "inner asylum" that they thought they could keep under wraps and still win elections. Trump somehow become a part of that asylum, and he got a key which started letting the rest of the inhabitants out into the political maelstrom. This is their monster; they created it, with the full backing of Corporate America.

If the Democrats and some Republicans still want to save democracy, then we should take care to consider that there's a growing number of fanatics out there. Fanatics only win when the people are either desperate enough to follow anyone - or apathetic enough that they don't care about anything. Or a combination of both, which is what we seem to be facing now.

This is a good assessment.

When I look at the problems I see in how the USA governs itself I don't just complain, I think of how the problems I see can be fixed for the better. For example I think representative districts need to be reformed to more accurately and objective reflect the will of the voters. Gerrymandering is a terrible problem.

Formula 1 was suffering from Mercedes domination for years and the old formula (the design and specs of the cars and engines) was changed this year after assessing problems with the cars that made them less competitive, even among equal cars. The new formula has improved the racing and spectators are in record numbers this year. So here is an organization that recognized a problem and fixed it.

What would you change about the system of governing in the USA for the better?

 

[Nakosis]

I don't know if the voters want confrontation or not. It's obvious that many in the Democratic Party are willing to confront on some issues, but not anything that would be displeasing to their corporate overlords. That's why they still support outsourcing, it's why they still support our same old broken healthcare system, it's why they still support warmongering, it's why they oppose affordable housing, it's why they oppose legalizing marijuana, it's why they consistently fail to bring about any border or immigration reform.

But on the other hand, they show no shyness in confronting the GOP over abortion or replacement theory. In fact, they're confronting them rather vigorously, probably because Corporate America doesn't care about those issues.

So then we are free to argue amongst ourselves as long as it's not interfering with the corporations.