The Democrats Are Moving Further Left

[ladsin]

In this question I asked yesterday Is Now The Time For A Third Political Party To Rise In The US? I apparently made a pretty controversial statement that was called out by quite a few people like @linds34 @Kalinka_ and @goaded so I thought I'd briefly address it in a myTake.

The controversial statement was "essentially the Democratic Party has moved very far left, and the Republicans span most of the spectrum." I think it's important to clarify that by this I mean that the democratic party is polarizing on the left, and the right is doing less of this.

Polarization

The first issue I want to address is to demonstrate that we are in fact living in a more polarized climate today than we were a few decades ago. This is always a pretty controversial statement with people hyperbolically stating "we've never been more divided!" With the obvious retort being that we fought a Civil War before. I think that this retort is poignant especially with one of the most controversial campaign ads ever being the Daisy advert in the 1960s which depicted a young girl and the threat of nuclear warfare. However when I'm talking about the increasing polarization I'm talking about within my own lifespan. Pew has run a poll on this topic consistently since my birth year and I think their findings are quite telling.

As you can see by the graph Dems and Repubs both had many shared political values in 1994, in fact far more than they differed. Now however that gap has clearly widened.

Who's Moved?

I believe that the claim we're becoming increasingly polarized is a fairly uncotroversial claim and I seem to not receive much pushback on it. I presume then that the biggest contention people will have with my aforementioned statement is that it's the democrats who are moving further left which has predominantly resulted in this divide. I can understand this sentiment as the typical response is that both parties have become more polarized and less ideologically diverse so it seems unfair to blame any one party. However these Pew results seem to clearly vindicate my statement.

As can be seen by both graphs the Democrats have moved moved further than their Republican counterparts at about twice the rate. Of particular import I think the first graph showing the difference between mixed republicans and democrats is particularly telling.

I think that's about all I'll write for today. It's admittedly short, but I think it gets enough of the point across. It's important to remember here that I'm not arguing that the Republicans policies are better, or that they aren't also becoming more polarized, just that the left is doing so more.

I also think this Op-Ed piece from CNN is a pretty good take on the situation

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27/opinions/democrats-should-not-tack-left-cunningham/index.html

Full report from Pew can be read here http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/the-partisan-divide-on-political-values-grows-even-wider/

[strawberrysouffle]

Dude, to european standards, both of your parties, at this very moment, are right-winged. So apparently, democrats used to be even more right-winged than they are now.
I'm still waiting for the day a left winged party comes into existence and people get the chance to vote for leftist ideas, 'cause I wanna see what Americans actually think, not whether the right-wingers choose more or less radical, and how many people just decided to go with the 'least bad' option. The big advantage of having lots of parties is that more people will actually cast their vote, and parties will be forced to cooperate, thus representing the “average“ of what people want, not just the ideas of one party that got slightly more votes than the other party.

At least, that would be ideal democracy.

[ladsin]

That didn't seem to have a lot to do with this, but thanks.

[Sixgun77]

No, having no political parties at all would be ideal.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

I know Europe is extremely liberal, and views our political parties as "right-wing", but even if you feel that way, I can tell you right now Democrats are far more liberal than they've ever been-even a big change in the past six years.

However, most people here in the United States of America aren't liberal at all.

[Soteris]

@EnglishArtsteacher So what you are basically saying is that there is currently a correction because USA was too far on the right.

[whatamievendoing117]

Get the chance? P'ha...

[hellionthesagereborn]

But that's not what is happening in Europe? For instance in the UK the people voted to leave the European union, the government then spent these past years doing everything in their power to go against the people. Clearly more political parties didn't work. I'm not saying our system is perfect, its most definitely not, I am only saying that European systems are no better (and one could argue, worse). As for "right winged" so what? Is that a bad thing? Is leftism the only good system? In the US, to be honest, we are actually more libertarian in temperament then anything else, most have a leave me the hell alone type of attitude, do as you will, that sort of thing. Generally speaking of course.

[whatamievendoing117]

@hellionthesagereborn I guess we're.. libertarian.. We're libertarian BECAUSE both sides of the policy smash each other. That's still not healthy especially when these parties don't even mean anything they say anymore, -all of them-.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@whatamievendoing117 Where libertarian because of our culture. We are a huge nation, we had to be independent, we also believed in the individuals right to govern their own lives, this is the foundation of our culture. That's what makes us libertarian by nature. Now that said, I agree the parties are crap. Personally I dislike the left very much (because it is constantly telling me what I can and cannot do with my life, what I can and cannot say, what I can and cannot buy and is constantly trying to take more and more money and power from me and the people), but republicans are, well horrifically weak. The entire political elite on the side of the right are spineless cowards at best, at worse, they collude with their opposition because its more profitable thus creating a monoparty system that had no way of balancing itself. I don't think a third party is going to fix this but I also don't know what will (but I hope we figure this out soon because it can only end poorly for us).

[whatamievendoing117]

@hellionthesagereborn It's not even about weakness on the Republican side, Republicans aren't.. "conservatives", not even Trump. They could legitimately be the exact opposite party and not make a difference for either because they're all an interest clique, it's so ironic of our president now after all he said to get elected. It's almost like these people usher reactionary politics specifically so we make eachother feel more than stupid and have others look at us the same. This stuff is enabled in the subtlest ways, why would it not be so and why is it such a stretch for some to see? Governments get wary of civilian populations, so they do stupid shit and get caught in a web so large that they ultimately abide by that's horrendous and eventually grotesque.

I'm on the right-side of things but I learned you can't bandwagon. Independant movements are quite unsucessful but that's because of the situation of these political parties that are beginning to outlive their usefulness. I personally believe in the idea of government splintering into sections that involve decision proposals and making through STEM, [government idea state or fed], and Military. A Republic bent on freedom of expression and will but also inherently "strict" to the valiance of upholding law. I'm also an isolationist, for the sake of remedying America's inside before out, because the only real out we do, not that anyone average reads or invests time in it ever, is power struggles and foreign wars of influence to varying calibers.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@whatamievendoing117 Well yes most are not conservative in anything but name and as for Trump, well yeah, he was a life long liberal (primarily moderate) he only ran as a republican because well the left has gone off the rails so much that he is now considered ultra conservative (which again, is obviously not the case). So yes, actual conservatives would be nice rather then the current ones who only pay lip service.

[SirRexington]

The fact that so many thumbed down your objectively true and well pointed out response further prooves how dumb so many people are.

[whatamievendoing117]

@SirRexington Well that's easy for you to say since you're a socialist.

[SirRexington]

@shyapples2 they are trying to. But failing miserably. I hope they do succeed.

[Soteris]

@SirRexington Do you want to deprive me of my comedy morning show? How dare you! What ever would I do without a steady stream of Trump quotes to laugh over?

[zagor]

Yeah? Hungary and Poland have gone right. Le Pen in France made the run-off. German right-wing parties (gulp) are doing better. Brexit. Putin supporters.

Still think Europe is left?

[strawberrysouffle]

@zagor Is it me you are addressing? Because I don't think Europe 'is left', that's obviously not what is seen in the political landscape. But Europe has the option to vote left. Europe also has the option to vote right, and all different kinds of left and right, that is. You can vote 'economic liberal', which is considered moderately right, or populistic, in which the economy is not your primary right concern, but your own traditions and ethnicity and who knows what more are. Or 'democratic center-right', where you don't want to have your country lean more towards the left, but you're not in favour of changing a lot, except ruling out the most extreme views. In most european countries you can also vote for a christian party, which is more or less always right-wing, and may or may not be incorporated in one of the other parties already at the right side of the spectrum. There's always a right-winged party that has few 'core views' but simply listens to what the current concerns among moderate or right-winged, and sometimes even left-winged (if there are enough) people are, and makes that their primary views from then on.
Same goes for the left. Green parties, socialist parties, "worker's party", moderate left, opportunistic left,...

[zagor]

You can vote for parties like that in the US. The difference is, they never stand a chance against the dominance of the two main parties. There is the Green Party and the Peace and Freedom party on the left, the American Independent party on the right, and the Libertarian Party who knows where, but between them they have zero representatives in Congress.

[strawberrysouffle]

@zagor Yeah, that's the point. they don't stand a chance, and some don't even know they exist. I just htink it's be 'healthy' to have at least one more party, but preferably just every party, standing a chance, and thus giving everyone an actual political choice instead of 'who do you disagree with the least out of these two?', 'cause both left and right often don't actually agree with neither democrats nor republicans, as you can see in this thread.

[MicroMan77]

@EnglishArtsteacher. The Democrats are no where near as liberal as they used to be. The Democrats were most liberal from the1930s to1970s, when they programs to create jobs and the poor. Today most of the Democratic party leaders are moderate conservatives (see Clinton's and Obama).

[zagor]

@MicroMan77 The programs created the poor, all right...

[ARTJAB]

"By European standards," Yeah, tell that to Eastern Europe and Italy.

[BrownBratzDoll]

If most of Americans are stupid enough to fall for t hug e left extremist propaganda. America will look like Detroit. We will be screwed for life. Look at venezuela.

[Haxxus]

I agree. If you do what other people do, you'll have their results. If you follow their steps you'll end up in the same place. It's common sense. I've said before some people are so open-minded their brains have fallen out.

[EmmaStar]

Exactly, people need to think when they hear all the promises of all the "Free stuff" Democrats are saying they want everyone to get. No, it's NOT really free. That money will have to come from somewhere or someone. An older neighbor that is a retired school teacher told me a Quote one day. (I forget who she was quoting)

"The problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money."

[Partywithtom]

No it won't. They'll tell them everything is fantastic and the same streets will be on FB with war breaking out and they'll just assume that means things are good because the magic box said so.

[SirRexington]

Yes there are sooo many dumb leftists. That's why the vast majority of people upvoted your tired, old and highly outrageous comment... Because we are moving left...

Give me a fucking break.

[SirRexington]

@EmmaStar Democrats want to give people free stuff? They just voted against ever implementing medicare for all by voting for n austerity bill!

[RetroAlpha]

The wasteland of Detroit was not caused by either political view. It was caused by the 1) Music industry moved from "Motown" to Los Angeles. 2) American car manufacturers failed to take the hint and continued making large, expensive cars when the market showed a trend moving toward smaller and cheaper, resulting in low sales. The steel and coal industries have also fallen off, effecting areas near Detroit, too.

[BrownBratzDoll]

@RetroAlpha Democrats have RAN DETROIT FOR YEAAAAAARS AND BALTIMORE THE CITY HAS VOTRD DEMOCRATIC city/local governorsTO RUN THEY CITY FOR CENTURIES! So yes Detroit is a perfect example that democratic policies are TRASH AND DONT WORK.

[BrownBratzDoll]

When u try to high Jack others people money to do this free shit. THEY GOING TO LEAVE.

[RetroAlpha]

Yeah, the Dems have had a pretty solid lock on Detroit since 1962. Detroit's problems are market forces, however, shaped largely by national and global issues. I understand if you want one side to take the blame for everything, but this is a situation where corporations failed to adapt, others left entirely or folded and it never had anything to do with any politician. The only thing that would have saved Detroit would have been R&D into making smaller, more efficient vehicles, alternative power, etc. They could have tried to lure Tesla there... I hear nothing but crickets on that front. It's not politics, it's just business.

[curiousnorway]

Not necessary. I don't think socialistic values would always ruin a country. As long it's done in moderation it would turn out fine. Both Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Finland turned out completely fine although they're social-democracies instead of full capitalism state like the US. Venezuela may have done a few mistakes, but that doesn't mean all socialism is bad.

[ladsin]

@curiousnorway Denmark is a market based system with purportedly higher economic freedom than America if I recall correctly. They just have massive social welfare programs. This is why pretty much everyone pays the government over 50% of their earnings.

I can't think of any communist or socialist society that's done well. Obviously we've got Venezuela, USSR, China under Mao etc.

[curiousnorway]

@ladsin, that's true. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland are social-democracy, not pure socialistic or communistic. But their model are inspired of both socialistic and capitalistic ideas. I think they're successful countries with a good system.

[humanearth]

Very smart answer for a young person. Need more like you.

[SketchForger]

It's mainly due to online culture, and how the unsavory deeds of another political party become such a Meme overnight. President Trump and Hilary Clinton are pretty much perfect examples of that. Whoever was able to get the most online attention, was viewed as what the political party represents.

Antifa and Neo Nazis are another example of internet culture simply consuming the extremes and internalizing them. Then those who view it from either side become increasingly repulsed by the opposing side.

[ladsin]

The political divide and the internet most certainly have something to do with each other.

[madhatters4]

i don't think growing gaps means moving further left or right or simply an entrenchment in ideology. but leadership overall is (both sides) pretty moderate. if the leadership reflects the voters i would suggest that there hasn't been a significant change

[ladsin]

Well according to pew the democrats are moving further left, what they call “liberal” and the conservatives are moving right “conservative”. its just that the democrats are doing it faster. I’d agree that generally the older policy makers are more centrist or moderate, but that’s not the case with the fresh faces we have now. Just look at Tlaib and AOC for examples. I don’t think they’ll be able to accomplish much because they’re asking for insane things, but they’re being heralded as the new thought leaders for the Democratic Party, so I have to trust what the democrats are telling me. (As I’m not a democrat)

Republicans have some similar wacky things, that’s why I just said it’s a matter of gradation. Sessions arguing for a new religious liberty task force being one such example from the Republicans.

[madhatters4]

but two reps are hardly representative of the whole or even sentiment of voters. i mean how many tea party types are there on the right. how many steve kings types?

i think both sides have significant portions moving more from the centrist or perhaps the issues we have just seem to divide us more than ever. i think what the pew graphs really show is why it is so damn hard for people to find compromise anymore

[madhatters4]

i wonder if it's the people that are moving so far right or left or the issues becoming more firmly entrenched on one side or the other.
immigration, travel bans, transgender bathrooms, gay marriage, the rise of gun violence and how to address it seem to be issues that were not as prevalent 15,20,30 years ago

[ladsin]

No certainly picking two random people isn't representative of a group. When a group elects two people and calls them the intellectual thought leaders that's a completely different scenario though.

That said I never argued that the republicans aren't also moving more conservative... Just that they're doing so at a less significant rate than their democrat counterparts are moving left. That's at least according to the Pew results over the past two decades. I also didn't argue that either was right or wrong to do so.

[bamesjond0069]

Republicans are moving in response to democrats moving. Most republicans tend to mind their own business and worry about themselves and families... until activists block the road saying kill cops or having a parade of men in thongs shaking their stuff in the road, or until their paycheck gets even more crushed with taxes that pay for things that provide them no benefit. When you interfere with conservatives we push harder. Leave us alone and we leave you alone.

[madhatters4]

@bamesjond0069 i don't think that is true at all. democrats didn't move in order for the alt-right to rise up. i think it's not really necessary for one party to move in order for the other party. i think circumstances in society dictate these moves more than politics. "nationalism" or simply the "make america great" idea (regardless of nationalist or globalist ideals has grown out of fears of illegal immigration, terrorism, refugees, the shuttering of old jobs that provided so many with reliable and decent paying jobs particularly in rural america, the shrinking middle class with a growing poor socioeconomic class, etc.

[bamesjond0069]

@madhatters4 I don't think that populism is necessarily far right policy. Nor do I agree alt right is actually on the right. It has far more in relation to the left but for whatever reason they don't want to associate with the left, id assume because they just hate the left so much. The enemy of my enemy sort of thing.

[nightdrot]

This is an outstanding bit of analysis - which is why I am now going to quibble with it. Sorry, but you knew that was going to happen.

To start, at the risk of being persnickety, as a matter of political philosophy, to the extent that the American political parties are ideologically coherent - which is not much - both American parties tend to the left of the spectrum in historical terms.

The GOP is closest to classical liberalism. Its central tenet is the idea that governments functions are limited and are designed to secure man's natural rights.

The Democrats come closest to radical liberalism. Please note that "radical" here does not mean its contemporary definition - i. e. extremist. Rather it harkens back to the Greek, meaning "to the root of."

The radical liberals agree with classical liberals that government must be brought into conformance with, and thereby maximize, natural rights. However, they argue that differences in wealth and power in society make this problematic. They therefore argue for a democratically elected but notionally disinterested government that seeks - through a transformative welfare state - to redress the imbalances in society and thereby maximize liberty.

However, even ignoring the historical pedigree of both party's animating principle, the dirty little secret is actually that both parties are moving left as Americans understand that term. To be sure, the Democrats are embracing a more activist welfare state than they were as recently as Bill Clinton's presidency.

However, look at the GOP. Speaker Ryan wanted to work on entitlement reform. The President would have none of it, nor in truth would large swathes of the party. The President has become protectionist - which would have horrified the Reagan era party. Ditto the party's stance on immigration - Reagan had amnestied illegals in 1986 and spoke in his Farewell Address of a city on a hill open to all with the determination and courage to reach it.

The list goes on. To be sure the wild card in this is populism. Which is not, strictly speaking, a schematic philosophy, but is rather an attitude characterized by hostility to elites, distrust of established institutions, a ferocious opposition to hierarchy and complexity, and an almost deification of the common man. In short, anything but conservatism, historically understood.

Populism is, in the milieu of the American political culture at the moment, driving both parties to the left, with the Democrats moving farther and faster only insofar as they started on the left. This viewed in an American context and allowing for the fact that both parties are really coalitions and thus not always ideologically consistent or unified.

The reasons for this are sociological, economic and demographic, but the paradoxical effect is to create the polarization that you rightly point to. This may seem counterintuitive but it has a fascinating historical parallel.

The National Socialists and the Communist were ferocious enemies. Both came - as the word "socialist" in National Socialist suggests - came from the left of the political spectrum.

What then accounted for their ferocious antipathy was the fact that they were fighting over ideological purity and were fishing for the same supporters. This gave an added ferocity and bitterness to their rivalry.

So now, the Democrats were the party of the lower middle income and blue collar voter until Mr. Trump stole them away for the GOP. So now the GOP fights to keep them and the Democrats to win them back - of course without losing their other supporters.

The result is a ferocious and intensely bitter rivalry that is then both effect and cause of the vitriol of contemporary American politics. This is not then an argument of opposite sides, but rather of a feuding family quarrel. Often the bitterest kind of argument among kin and within cultures.

[ladsin]

It's good to be nit-picky. I was going to contend your comment about America having been pretty left from the beginning, but the next sentence it looked like by left you were talking about Libertarian. If that's the case I agree.

The point about the right having moved left over the past several decades is a good one, but it's going to obviously be difficult because of conflicting views. As you pointed out with the protectionist policies of the rising conservative populist movements. The most shocking part of this research to me was to see how close both parties were in the early 1990s and how much they shared ideologically and politically compared to today where there's an increasingly shrinking amount that we ideologically agree with. That seems pretty dangerous to me.

[nightdrot]

If I might, you are sort of misunderstanding the use of the terms.

To start, libertarianism is a strand and outgrowth of classical liberalism. It really is all of the left, though the distinctions of "left" and "right" did not come into being until the French Revolution. It refers to where the representatives in the National Assembly sat in relation to the Speaker's chair - supporters of the monarchy and the church sat to the right of the Speaker, supporters of a republic to the left.

Indeed, in that connection, that gives you some idea of where the United States started its existence. The American revolutionaries were not part of the King George III Fan Club.

The kind of conservatism of which I partake did arise in the United States, but almost by historical accident. Ironically in the form of the Whig party, whose philosophy was Tory, but whose name came from its opposition to "king" - as he was pejoratively referred to - Andrew Jackson. The country's first populist President, the Donald Trump of his day.

Suffice to say, Tory conservatism did not endure in a country that lacked its institutional predicates - an established church, an hereditary aristocracy, a monarchy. The party split, and one of its members, Abraham Lincoln, went on to help found the Republican party. Indeed the GOP may have become Tory conservative had Lincoln not been assassinated and the radical Republicans gained the ascendancy.

The United States was born in the ideas of the Scottish Enlightenment, which are - though were only defined retrospectively - classical liberal, of which radical liberalism and libertarianism are outgrowths.

Another point. Unless you mean it as a convenient shorthand, conservatism and populism are antithetical. It is terminologically incorrect to refer to "conservative populist movements." They ain't compatible - this being more confusing because populism is not really a schematic philosophy at all.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

Anyhow, having bored you to the nth degree with all this philosophical hair splitting - sorry, but it is the bread and butter of political philosophy - I will just add that it was not that the United States was not "pretty left" from the beginning. Rather it WAS left - though, again, the terms "left" and "right" as political categories did not come into being until the later French Revolution.

You have to trace the ideas back to their starting points. Draw a diagram, and "conservative" and "liberal" started at separate points. By contrast, what Americans call "liberal" and "conservatism" are actually "radical liberalism" and "classical liberalism," respectively, and come from essentially the same point. (Libertarianism also comes from the same intellectual starting point. Populism is a bit of a wild card. Not being a distinct philosophy as such, it tends to graft itself onto circumstances as it finds them.)

As to the parties of the 90s and today. Again, the differences now are more apparent than real. Again, this is really an argument between two related strands of liberalism.

The Democrats of the 90s were adjusting to realities of a country that had been dominated by Reagan conservatism - read classical liberalism. We've done this before - see also the Eisenhower GOP. You'd be surprised how much it overlapped with the Democratic party. This all being blurrier because the parties are coalitions.

If your head is not swimming - kudos - the fact is as I say, we've been here before. The FDR Democrats gained the ascendancy. The Eisenhower-Nixon-Ford GOP follows. Then the FDR order collapses and the Reagan GOP gains the ascendancy. Bill "the era of big government is over" Clinton Democrats follow.

Throwing all of this into even more confusion is as the economy moves from manufacturing/extractions to service/high tech base, populism is throwing a spin into both parties. (Even then, we've been here before - Andrew Jackson, William J. Bryan.)

Lots of moving parts.

[ladsin]

Mm I don't think the linear model (just left-right) is adequate. The four quadrant model (as shown in my profile picture) I find to be far more appropriate and that's the distinction I was making.

[MicroMan77]

America has never been libertaria and never will be. If America was a libertarian country it wouldn't have had slavery and racial discrimination, not to mention genocide of Native Americans. What about all the gun control laws America has had that made it illegal to sell guns to free blacks and Native Americans. Are you sure you're an American or are you just really white because only white person would think that America is traditionally libertarian. America is traditionally a fascist country. For God's sake I'm white even I know that.

[nightdrot]

Funny thing, I don't disagree with the four quadrant model, but it works better as political science than political philosophy. My problem with it being that it is trying to separate - and in some cases force together - ideas or policies that can trace their pedigree to certain strands of political thought.

Small example: Free trade is called conservative in an American context. Yet free trade is an outgrowth of classical liberalism. (Hence Adam Smith - and this also has implications in the immigration debate: "The merchant has no country." Conservatism - historically understood - saw it as mere policy option, not principle. (Hence, Disraeli, "Protection is an expedient, not a principle.)

My problem with the four quadrants model is that it categorizes ideas without taking account of their pedigree. It is convenient, but it is an oversimplification and is why Republicans and Democrats often end up being surprised - and appalled - at the consequences of the policies they advocate.

[ladsin]

My only issue is that we know we can have both progressive authoritarians and conservative authoritarians. We can also have conservative libertarians and progressive libertarians. It's certainly true that America was never purely libertarian, that would presumably be an oxymoron as most die hard libertarians are anarchists proposing no government.

[nightdrot]

@MicroMan77 Several points: 1) Neither the author nor myself said it was libertarian. 2) The genesis of the ideas that inspired the American revolution and the Constitution have their roots in the Scottish Enlightenment which is the birthplace of classical liberalism. 3) No society is apt to live entirely according to its principles. Rather it is a process of coming to a deeper understanding of the ideas that inspired it. Hence Lincoln and a "nation dedicated to a proposition."

Without meaning to be harsh, your grasp of history seems superficial and abstract and your use of the terminology does not seem to be well informed nor especially precise. In any case, as noted, neither of us said the U. S. was rooted in libertarianism.

[nightdrot]

Not sure who you were responding to, but I would be cautious about using the term authoritarian. Again, you get into tidy abstractions that do not necessarily conform to the reality. Plus, you are now conflating liberalism and progessivism. Those two, in political philosophy, are different things.

As I say, the bread and butter of political philosophy. Words have meaning and my gripe with political science is that it tends to be very sloppy in its use of words. It defines words and ideas not with relation to their philosophical and historical pedigree, but to their current or common usage - and those usages are often mistaken or misleading.

[ladsin]

Ah, was I mistaken on the four quadrant model? I thought it was progressive->conservative, authoritarian->libertarian.

[nightdrot]

Sorry, I am not clear what you are asking. There is nothing wrong with your understanding. My point is, rather, that as a tool for understanding the meaning and pedigree of political ideas it is an oversimplification and, indeed, even mistaken.

Note, for example, the use of progressive and the absence of the word liberal. Progressive and liberal are used interchangeably in contemporary discussion but they are, in fact, different things. The model effectively uses them as stand-ins for one another, but philosophically and historically that does not work.

[nightdrot]

P. S. By the way, as an aside, I don't fault you at all in this. Even I have a hard time conveying meaning when it comes to these terms.

You'll note, for example, that often when i write the first time I refer to the words "conservative" or "liberal" I'll add something like, "as Americans understand that term/those terms." If I mean conservatism historically understood I might write, "classical" or "Tory" conservaitism, and so on.

It is often hard, when writing to a general audience, to convey the distinctions in a way that does not seem tedious or verbose. My only point to you is that you need to be clear in your own mind what the distinctions are and the pedigree of the ideas.

The problem, again, with the model is that it is using specific ideas interchangeably, as if they meant the same things, when they often don't. Indeed, a funny aside, American liberals used to be called progressives until that idea became associated with things - eugenics for example - that had unpleasant associations.

Things stayed that way until, beginning during the Reagan years, the word "liberal" seem to become a sort of trendy epithet. At that point a lot of American liberal politicians began calling themselves progressives, again, seemingly unaware of the associations that had attached to that word in the past.

Like I said, lots of moving parts. Bottom line, the model is a tool of convenience. However, it is - upon closer inspection - of relatively limited utility in understanding the ideas it is utilizing.

[ladsin]

Cool, thanks

[goaded]

Like I said in your question, I reject the premise that opinions that changed over a 23 year period necessarily represent a movement left, right, or any other way, but that the correct answer to many of those questions have changed.

Additionally, it's possible that Democrats got tired of pretending to consider things that have been shown to be wrong, over and over again, like trickle-down economics.

Looking at the ten questions, questions 1-4, and 7 (and, to a lesser extent, numbers 5 & 10) show an interesting pattern. The Republican position moves significantly towards the Democratic position until some time between 2002 and 2006, then suddenly reverse course and shoot upwards.

Why was the Republican party moving left until 2002?

It's almost as if someone started telling them what to believe (which roughly coincided with Newt Gingrich doing an about-face on climate change, for an example).

2. Government wasteful: One side is fairly consistent, the Democratic position in 2017 was the Republican position in 2000. Apparently it started getting wasteful with a Republican in charge?

3. Poor people getting something for nothing: No longer true, like I pointed out, there are work requirements for benefits that weren't there in 1994, but were introduced later, so a lower proportion believing it is simply a rational response to reality, not a movement to the left.

5. Fair and reasonable amount of profit: Big corporations are earning record high profits and often keeping them offshore.

6. Black people are mostly responsible for their own condition: More awareness of inner city problems, perhaps?

7. Immigrants are a burden: Both parties think that's less true than it was, Democrats more so than Republicans.

8. Homosexuality: I think that's old people dying off in both parties (and Republicans being a decade behind the times!)

9. Peace through military strength: 1994 was just after the successful Kuwait war, and the US was still helping Bosnia (the intervention in Haiti was also in support of democracy, and successful); in 2017 the US military had been stuck in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria for many, many years, and I don't think anyone can claim it's made the world more peaceful.

10. Regulations hurt the economy: Both party's voters moved in opposite directions. I don't suppose there's any proof?

As a further indication of the differing perceptions of reality between the parties (and their representatives):

[ladsin]

Sure? I didn't argue that either party was right. In fact I stated the opposite. The argument was simply that the Democrats are moving further left... Not that they're wrong to do so.

[goaded]

Isn't the implication of that, that the Republicans are just sticking with outdated opinions? (And, looking at the Pew graphs without the first two data points (1994/8?), show a generally larger movement?)

[ladsin]

Well by definition conservatives tend to want to conserve tradition and the like. The Republicans are our "conservative" party.

[goaded]

OK, I get that, but why the turn-around after 2002, do you think?

Flicking through the whole report (http://assets. pewresearch. org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/10/05162647/10-05-2017-Political-landscape-release. pdf), I noticed this, as well (page 99):
Political affiliations:
1994, R: 30.1%, D: 31.5, I: 33.5
2002, R: 30.4, D: 31.4, I: 29.8
2016, R: 25.4, D: 32.0, I: 36.5.

That looks, to me, like about 1 in 6 people stopped considering themselves Republican, which would make the remainder's opinions count more. (If, previously, 50% of Republicans thought something, and 1 in 6 left, who didn't agree, that would change the percentage to about 59%, right? It's one opinion per 84 "new" Republicans instead of one per 100 "old" Republicans.) What do you think?

[ladsin]

Are you asking why I think the Republican’s mean scores have moved right? If that’s your question I’d say what I said in this take that both parties are polarizing the Democrats are just doing so faster. Why they are doing so I’m sure has a lot of factors involved, but the rise of the internet may be one of the largest.

[0112358]

Graphs are very interesting. It looks to me like there are a bunch of issues where both republicans and liberals moved left between mid 90s and 2005 or so, and then the republicans moved right again while dems kept moving left.

That said I think what's perhaps most interesting is that my -perception- which i'd have to research or look at to see, is that it seems like the democrats in power ended up being run by the actual liberal (i. e. relatively centrist) part of the party, while the left were shut out, while the republicans seem to have been taken over by … well the Trumpian/breitbart wing.

I think it's absolutely true in -attitude- that democrats are moving left. They're more interested in things like medicare for all, for instance. And they also are moving left on issues around identity politics and rights for minority groups.

My question is … if the republicans haven't moved, why do they suddenly have a bunch of trade protectionists convinced immigration is the biggest issue in America in charge?

[ladsin]

Well you're talking about the most recent trends which of course we don't yet know much about. There's a pretty big schism even within the Republican party with the never vs always Trumpers (ie Romney writing a slam piece against Trump last week). It's true that in America both parties have moved towards the left as can be seen with Republican acceptance of homosexuality, government regulation in business, protectionist policies, etc. They've just done so at a slower rate and recently have started moving more conservative as (I think) a backlash to far more rapid movement of the Democratic party to the left.

Who's currently in power within the Democratic party is really a crap shoot at the moment. Sure Nancy Pelosi is currently speaker of the house, but how much media coverage is she getting as being the ideological thought leader of the Democratic party compared to someone like AOC?

[EnglishArtsteacher]

From my personal experience, and from what it looks like in the data you posted, and elaborated on, Democrats are definitely more liberal than they ever have been. As a matter of fact, they are much more to the "left" than they were even since the 2012 Presidential Election. From what I can tell, Republicans haven't changed much at all in my lifetime. Hell, I remember in 2004 when George W. Bush was running for re-election, one of his biggest issue points was preventing illegal immigration.

If you ask me, as a moderate who actually leans a little liberal, it's quite stupid for Democrats to move to the left. We are a right-leaning country. Even many people who vote Democrats are moderate, or right-leaning. Admitting you're a Socialist is basically social suicide (pun intended). I teach a school where 99 percent of the student population derives from poverty in the urban city. A vast majority of them tell me they are Democrats, or want to vote Democrat, and pretty much all of them loath Donald Trump, or anyone who is a Republican. And even then, many of them are still conservative on abortion, and gun rights, despite being liberal on socioeconomic issues, the war, and immigration.

My point being, if Democrats want people to take them seriously here in the United States of America, they need to quit throwing out the "liberal" card.

[SirRexington]

If Democrats want to be taken seriously they need to actually put in place efficient programs to assist those stuck at the bottom instead of kissing up to mega corporations.

Democrats don't care about the people, they just care about their money. Course Republicans aren't any better.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

@SirRexington There is this too.

But I was just saying from an issues standpoint.

[HeyThere94]

The polls are showing that the United States is moving more to the left on topics like weed, LGBTQ rights, ending the wars, Medicare for All, an Universal Gun Background Check, etc

[EnglishArtsteacher]

@HeyThere94 Just to pick apart one issue you said: "Universal Gun Background" checks is the proverbial baby-steps on gun control. I know gun-nuts who oppose gun control in most cases, but even they support background checks.

When it comes to banning any type of guns (even automatics), THAT is where people are usually conservative on this issue. Even liberals are conservative on this issue.

[ForteExe]

I agree on the premise. Admittedly I skimmed this because I'm feeling lazy so I won't contest the details. I'm not sure if you wrote this or not but it's my impression that many of the displaced liberals have aligned themselves with the right, rather than remain in some vacuous indeterminate party. It's not obvious to me that the creation of a new party will do much good unless the ones who are in that political special hell are comparable in numbers to conservatives. I don't think people on the right would jump ship for some new party if it looked or smelled anything like the progressive liberals they wanted nothing to do with. It seems more likely to me that there'd be a divide of something resembling a 45/30/20/10 ratio of right/new/progressive/independent split between voters in that scenario. Obviously you can shift the numbers but the point I wanted to get across is while the right may be weakened by the new party, unless the new one is comparable in numbers all it'll do is ensure that the right wins the popular vote. I also don't imagine the electoral college will be kind to some new party, although I don't have anything to base that on apart from general skepticism so take that for what it's worth.

[ladsin]

I took the information from Pew research. I personally think the left is moving further left and this is leading to a rebounding from the right (as can be seen with the rise of populist conservative movements all over Europe). The point about dividing the political base is poignant, but I'd like to see a more adversarial system as opposed to our two party system.

[Starrk]

Both party have been going toward their respective polar ends. However, as of this second, the people who are in control of the Democrat party are still very well moderate with some liberal tendency. Clinton, Obama, and Hilary were all moderates who were hesitate on becoming more liberal out of fear of losing the American people or trying to appease Republicans. The last true liberal President that we had was probably LBJ or Carter.

As for the graph well I see some problems within it all ready. First of all, Republicans in 1994 were in the deep trenches of conservationism, while Democrats were trying to be their less extreme counterparts. Over the past 20 years, Republicans fell deeper into conservatism while Democrats rightfully start to shift into the more liberal territory (where they belong). While the graph show Democrats are further to the left now, keep in mind that Republicans were already further right in 1994. The fact they manage to move even further to the end is something that should not be ignored.

Another issue I have with this graph, is that it only starts collecting data in 1994. By 1994 Republicans had already completed their big shift to the right. Had there been data like this from the 1950s to present day then you'll see a much larger shift to the right from Republicans.

If Eisenhower, Gerald Ford or Nixon ran for President in 2019 under the modern day Republican party they would be politely escorted to the DNC or Libertarian Party. The values they had (especially Eisenhower) would not align with modern day Republicans.

[SirRexington]

Well said. I don't see Nixon not being a republican though..

[SirRexington]

We need to understand that it is the voters moving further left. Those in power within the DNC are still a bunch of neo-liberal war loving centrists or center right.

Also what is considered left in America is not considered that far left anywhere else. So the polls are already skewed. Most Americans are not socialist although more people are favoring it more than traditional capitalism. Most Americans do like the idea of universal healthcare however, something America believes to be socialist even though it is not inherently socialist...

I might also like to add that people on the right have moved much further to the far right. Social conservatism and far right economics are making a comeback amongst the right and amongst people who hate SJWs, who are not far left by the way. They are liberals. Leftists don't like them either as far I've noticed.

People are seeing the shortfalls of capitalism and it's negative impact on so many Americans. Capitalism is in it's final stages I believe before we start to become forced to shift to a more egalitarian society. Will we become communists, in the truest sense of the word? Probably not. But we are going to be forced to implement better redistributive policies if we want America to truly keep up with itself.

[ladsin]

It's not skewing the results to compare like to like. I used to be fairly left wing. I took the political compass again and wound up slightly right wing. Does it skew the results that my views are different than someone else's? No...

No. The conservative party hasn't moved "much farther right". Quite to the contrary they've been primarily moving left over the last several decades. Over the past decade-ish though they've moved slightly further right, but at half the rate that the democrats are moving left as I demonstrated by showing the results of the Pew research.

Your last statement is just an assertion that you think it's good that democrats are moving left, that may or may not be the case, but it's not relevant as that's not what I was addressing here.

[ThatsaGreatname]

Also you have to remember that at one point Democrats were mostly the "conservative" party and Republicans "Liberals". In my opinion it's just like everything else it changes. Be cause the only thing that is turely constant is change. I also believe that a chart like that has meaning but not to the full scope of that's going on. Because there are more than two ways to look at something. Just because I am Republican does not mean that I agree with honestly either side. There all a lot of stuff that I think both sides could do differently to end up with something that is more of a middle ground. But it's like relationships all that is based on communication and compromise. Something we as a society do not do very well. We have our views and to a lot of us our view is right. There is no real giving and getting anymore

[ladsin]

Well it made a lot more sense that we were able to communicate and compromise a lot more in the 1990s through early 2000s as both parties shared most political values in common. Just look at Hill-dog, Schumer, and Obama talking about illegal immigration and border security a little more than a decade ago and you can see that both sides were deeply concerned about it. Now today both sides have far less in common and thus far less room for common discourse and agreement. When one side is arguing for increased border security and the other that ICE are human rights violators that need to be disbanded what compromise can be had?

[normalice]

odd. Another research site seems to conclude the opposite:

legacy.voteview.com/...tical_polarization_2014.htm

meh

[ladsin]

Meh... I'm not sure how reliable "voteview" is, I tried checking out their study, but it started to get a little more wild. I'd have to spend more time than I'm really willing to do at the moment. I may come back to it later.

[normalice]

yeah...

although, I would point out that the graphs you posted seem to have a 'cap,' of sorts. i. e. the x-axis in the first graph seems more about "how many align with liberal policy" rather than "how liberal is that policy". The former can be, at most, 100%, whereas if there was some way to quantify the latter (which the source I posted seemed to try to do) it could go off to infinity or whatever..

[ladsin]

Well sure, and that's one contention many people have raised in that America as a whole is a pretty conservative country. Even our democrats are pretty conservative (by European standards) hence why I tried to just talk about it within the context of recent American history. This of course isn't entirely accurate as we're currently having a massive amount of virtue-signaling legislation/ talks which I presume will never actually happen. AOCs greed deal, Calif declaring itself a sanctuary state, NY talking about medical care for all etc.

[normalice]

Yeah, I suppose therein lies the flaw with this sort of study (or at least with using the method that pew used) - using "how many align with liberal policy" as a basis only works if you define "how liberal is liberal policy." And they haven't.

[cipher42]

I mean, I don't really find this surprising, nor at all undesirable (but I'm pretty liberal, so duh). Like, it's in the name. Conservatives stick to traditional, and thus static values, while liberals think things should change. And on most social fronts, I'd say change was highly necessary and desirable- abolishing slavery, supporting gender equality, establishing equal rights for people of all races and sexual orientations, that kind of thing. And to be fair, in that sense even many conservatives have shifted leftwards, though not as many as liberals since the change was largely driven by liberals.

[MrOracle]

Who do you think abolished slavery? Hint: it was this brand new political party started by Abraham Lincoln...

[goaded]

@MrOracle Republicans used to be liberal. Things have changed a bit since then.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln97.html

"The Rockefeller Republicans, also called Moderate[2] or Liberal Republicans, were members of the Republican Party (GOP) in the 1930s–1970s who held moderate to liberal views on domestic issues..."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Republican

[cipher42]

@MrOracle Buddy, you seem to be making the miatake of conflating "liberal" with "Democrat" and "conservative" with "Republican". As @goaded pointed out, that's deeply historically ignorant. So, maybe next time before making some smug comment about historical fact running counter to someone else's claim, you A) actually make an effort to understand the context of the history you're talking about and B) properly read how that claim was stated. Otherwise, you'll just end up looking historically ignorant and politically naive, as you managed to do here.

[Waffles731]

I disagree, first I think its important to take a look at the leadership.
The leadership of the Democratic party is closer to the center than the leadership of the republicans who have moved their platform to the right, so while they do cover more the fact is that those in power are attacking things like seperation of church and state, advocating for a wall on the southern border, clearly not doing a thing about the white supremacists in their ranks, allowing corporate lobbying to run roughshod over actual people, and calling everything remotely left of center as marxism
2. What I have personally seen is that the shift that covers the newer non leadership wing of the democratic party is much more recent, whereas the Republican party has been moving right for a while and while it is slower, its also been going on for a while.

[ladsin]

I'm not sure that there's any evidence to back your position. In regards to political leadership both sides are pretty moderate. This is just a result of having to bargain. We've had border walls/ barriers for quite a while. In 2006 a bill passed with resounding approval to build something like up to 700 miles of border fencing. It just hasn't happened yet. Yes the Republican party has it's problems, but I'm talking about this polarization. Recent policy proposals from the left that are quite radical and arguments like the abolition of ICE, 100% renewable energy in a decade, etc. Some of that stuff has become quite rampant. Thus when talking about who has become more polarized or moved more in recent decades I think the best way is to look at the research like that of Pew.

[SkipStop]

Democrats and liberals can't control their anger. They move further to the left so they can be louder and gain more attention. The more violent and louder someone is, the more attention they receive. I absolutely hate the left. But that doesn't mean I'm an extremist on the right. I consider myself center - right because there are things that I don't care about. But more and more democrats have gone crazy which keeps them moving to the extreme left. They are danger to our country and the world.

[juliaanita]

Thanksfor a fairly well thought out treatment of the political posturing in the US. I am a political lefty, just so you know. I am not so concerned about the polarization in our country as I am about the growing authoritarian movement worldwide-of which the current mobster president is only a symptom. Said one politician "The politics of fear and resentment … is now on the move. It’s on the move at a pace that would have seemed unimaginable just a few years ago. I am not being alarmist, I’m simply stating the facts. Look around – strongman politics are on the ascendant."
This is the scariest phenonoma for me. The US will survive this current president. I fear though that the globe will not survive the rise of strongman governments.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

People aren’t becoming more left or right. Idiots are given a microphone and an audience on both sides... just take a look at most of the comments on here. And you have the echo chamber effect.

It’s like yelp. No one on yelp gives an average review. You only hear from the people who jizz their pants over the thought of that restaurant or people who thinks everything about it sucks ass

See graph below

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

As a result, you have liberal retards sucking themselves off over how terrible conservatives are and autistic conservatives convincing themselves they’re gods give to the world and liberals need to lay in feces

[ladsin]

Uhh. You have to give some context for that "graph" (is that a scatter plot?)
Regardless I never argued that the Republicans aren't also polarizing, in fact according to the research I presented the opposite is the case. Both sides are moving apart, it just so happens that the Democrats are doing so at a far faster rate.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

It’s a twitter metric... I’m lazy so I had a dude do the work for me

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

Also, that’s also misleading in some regards. Social norms have changed in the last 10+ years. For existence, the legalization of gay marriage, decriminalization and thoughts on drugs (like weed), social media growth, I can keep going.

[ladsin]

Ah, you can make one of those yourself? That's cool. I don't get how your point about social norms is supposed prove that somehow the republicans are moving further right than the democrats are moving left... I mean the two positions you mentioned which have gained massive traction in the US as a whole (gays and weed) are stereotypically lefty positions.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

some nerd with way more time than me made it...

that's not the point. i don't give a shit. my point being it's misleading to say democrats are moving further left when the "middle" itself is moving further left compared to the past few decades. therefore, the people haven't shifted, the median has due to the above mentioned factors.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

in comparison, take basketball. left is offense, right is defense. you could say the offense to defense metrics were about even... but given the lack of hand checking in todays game, the improvement of the 3 ball, no hard fouls, increase in athleticism, zone defense, double teaming, etc, it's not that defense has gotten worse, it's just offense has been improved that much, the metrics and medians changed.

do you have a good understanding of how statistics works?

[ladsin]

I know a little about stats.
Ok, so your argument as I understand it is essentially that the mean for Americans as a whole has moved left in the past two decades. (We'll just say that the mean has moved 10 points to the left for the sake of ease.) For this reason the democratic party moving 20 points to the left is not as radical as the republicans moving 10 points to the right from their 1994 standards. Is that your point?

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

Kinda... or more simplistically. let’s compare 1950 to now. The mean has moved left, not because people are more liberal per say, but because most white people aren't flat out racist and ok with segregation and beating minorities for no reason or thinking domestic abuse is ok...

[ladsin]

Sure? So the American public has become more “left” as a whole, thus the rate at which the democrats are doing so in the past two decades isn’t an important issue.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

Yes... the bigger issue is letting idiots with opinions have a microphone

[ladsin]

Thanks

[linds34]

Those Pew results show what people perceive, not what is happening. Republicans spend all their time criticizing Democrats for being too liberal, which leads people to think that is so. Somebody like President Eisenhower would certainly be a Democrat today.

[ladsin]

Uhh... republicans telling democrats that democrats are too liberal leads democrats to set report more liberal ideological statements?

[linds34]

What is considered liberal and conservative changes over time. For example, Republican President Nixon created the EPA, and saying we want clean air & water would have been uncontroversial until recently.

[ladsin]

I have no idea what that has to do with democrats and republicans reporting their own views on a scale.

[linds34]

I'm saying those ten questions you show wouldn't have necessarily had "liberal" and "conservative" answers in 1994. So if you had a certain set of views, only recently would they even seem to be liberal or conservative.

[Liam_Hayden]

JFK would be booted out of the DNC. What's your point?

[TheSpartan]

Eisenhower wouldn’t in any way be a Democrat lmao

[CollegeStudentDennis]

Pew is extremely reputable

[TheSpartan]

Eisenhower would be shocked that gays aren’t in prison, for starters.

[CollegeStudentDennis]

@TheSpartan hahaha. Good thing DJ Trump didn’t appoint good ole George. They would even find something wrong with him.

[TheSpartan]

@CollegeStudentDennis George Washington would be considered a neo-Nazi lol

[CollegeStudentDennis]

@TheSpartan yeah I know was being funny.

[TheSpartan]

@CollegeStudentDennis I know lol. It’s just so hilarious how historically ignorant these people are.

[SirRexington]

@Liam_Hayden no... JFK would have been championed. He loved war, he expanded the social safety set...

I don't get where you come to that conclusion. And if you believe Republicans would take him, you're nuts.

[roaring20sman]

@TheSpartan LMAO! You made me laugh my ass off 😂 you're so right how historically ignorant the left is lol

[SirRexington]

@roaring20sman it's funny because I could say the same about the right.

[TheSpartan]

@roaring20sman let me give you a hint: I know more about American history than anyone on this site, period. Now, with that in mind, please tell me where I’m wrong.

[MicroMan77]

@TheSpartan you don't know anything history but that is typical of conservatives.

[genericname85]

i think relative to multy party governments, they are still relatively close together. i'm still wondering how america can still survive on this "turd sandwitch vs giant turd" system. you need some more political diversity so people can actually have a meaningfull vote.

[Idonthaveausername]

If you're referencing South Park, it's "Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich" lol, but that is what this past election boiled down to

Personally I think a Libertarian party would have the best chance of being successful because they would appeal more to the swing voters and independents

[RachelleDraws]

I disagree with the two-party system, but I don't think that there should just be three. First past the post doesn't work well. You should be able to have a first choice, second choice, third choice, etc. Splitting the Democratic party in two with the current isn't exactly going to be fair for liberals as Republicans would always win as there would be two liberal parties. It wouldn't stay one for long either.

[MeatLoversPizza]

I would not say split the Democrats in 2 but definitely get someone famous like Jesse Ventura and start a third party that is moderate but not a joke like Libertarians or others make this party just as strong as the other 2 parties and make it about standing up to the extremism that is on both sides.

[RachelleDraws]

@MeatLoversPizza Sorry, but I don't know who that person is. And like I said, a third party would never work in the United States. It would split the liberal vote the two parties would likely fuse quickly. If the parties didn't, it would lead to constant conservative victories which would be a lose/lose for both the liberal parties. Allowing things like collations to form would be a quick solution.

And this graph doesn't exactly represent everything. As politics naturally will slowly drift left, regardless of how hard conservatives push against that. (In a general sense). This is why things like republics exist and we (generally) have racial tolerance. Conservatives in the past were against those but now they aren't. So it's not really just the democrats that are moving left, it's that the Republicans aren't moving with them. (The third image is a good example)

[loveslongnails]

Very misleading. If you actually follow the bills introduced in Congress, you'll find techniques used by "primarily" Republicans that have become commonplace for them. They propose laws with provisions that are so outrageous they could never pass as it, but it forces the Dems to go to far opposite end so after negotiations, the result is somewhat in the middle. It's no different than haggling with a vendor at a market, except that it's "supposed to be about government FOR the people" ... for all the people, not just your party. Hence, compromise becomes an evil word and gets viewed as a sign of weakness. Well guess what guys... you're already weak in the head.

[Anonymous]

My dick is getting more and more liberal, and her pussy is becoming more and more conservative. In fact my dick is getting more liberal at a faster rate than her pussy is getting conservative. I used to think fucking once a day was enough, but now I want it 3 or 4 times a day. She used to fuck me once a week, but now she fucks me only 3 or 4 times a year. So my dick is a liberal, but her pussy is a conservative. It means it's only a matter of time before I put my dick inside a man's ass, and it's only a matter of time before she stops muff diving her friend Lucy.

[Poormanscomedian]

They are communists now, trying to control free speech, trying rid US of Christians, trying to undermine the constitution , especially gun ownership. Spying on people. Creating hoaxes like Global Warming to control peoples lives, and take their money. . Higher Taxes to give money to people who refuse to work. They want same pay for everyone whether they have a degree or not.. Ruining health care. Punishing achievement. They would like to sports with no scores or trophies.

[goaded]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

[Kalinka_]

They are not communists.

[Poormanscomedian]

@Kalinka_ They meet the standard

[Kalinka_]

They certainly do not. Tell me a single thing that they've got in common.

[Poormanscomedian]

@Kalinka_ Set wages, no free speech, no guns, special rights for minorities , anti christian, printing money, . I could go on for an hour

[Kalinka_]

Apart from set wages and anti-religion, everything you've said is rubbish. Such things don't make someone a communist either way and liberalism has always been a thought that protects religion.

[Poormanscomedian]

@Kalinka_ you are 20 and clueless

[Kalinka_]

No, you are. I've read the books, you haven't.

[Poormanscomedian]

@Kalinka_ I was the best history student in my class 4.0 +

[Kalinka_]

A classroom will never beat books.

[Poormanscomedian]

@Kalinka_ depends the merit of the person who wrote the book. There are books on UFO, but the guy that wrote it is a nut that was abducted. People tend to read what they already believe.

[SirRexington]

@Kalinka_ but communists don't believe in wage slavery and tend to support gun rights seeing as how they distrust the government since much... communists don't believe in paper money either...

As for the Pelosi things, you guys realize the left was pissed when no one stepped up to take her on right? They hate her. They think she's a bitch who rolls over for conservatives and who is not in line with what the people want.

[Poormanscomedian]

@SirRexington USSR used money

[Kalinka_]

USSR was socialist.

[SirRexington]

@Kalinka_ the ussr was as socialist (as it's described in definition) as I am happy. Which is not much.

[Kalinka_]

How do you describe socialism and how was it different from the USSR?

[SirRexington]

@Kalinka_
A society where the means of production are owned by the workers or are socially owned.

Neither of those two things were aspects of the USSR.

[Kalinka_]

It was so. At least before Krushchev came to power and ruined the Soviet Union with his revisionism.

Do you believe it to have been privately owned?

[SirRexington]

@Kalinka_ owned by the state. That's not workers owning the means of production which they mixed their labor with.

And yes there was private ownership. Not to mention the government had control over resources instead of it being socially owned and accessable.

[Kalinka_]

Owned by the state in name, controlled by councils in practice. Soviet (Советы) means councils in English. It was democratically controlled, with the state dictating what needed to be produced.

I'm doubtful of your claims of it being privately owned.

[SirRexington]

@Kalinka_ council's owned by the authoritarian state... They weren't "democratically owned" lol. Where the hell did you get that nonsense?

[Kalinka_]

No, councils controlled by the workers and elected by them. All states are authoritarian, never will you find a free country, it does not exist.

www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/state.htm

[SirRexington]

@Kalinka_ a centrally planned economy like the USSR defeats the point of socialism. I'm a left libertarian, and as such I recognize the Soviet Union as state capitalism where a single entity controlled the means of production and how it was distributed instead of worker cooperatives.

[SirRexington]

And in fact the biggest detractors from the Soviet Union were actual communists and socialists who were persecuted by the red army.

[Kalinka_]

What's your problem with Command Economies? The only other way to know how much production is needed would be with a Market Economy and, in such an economy, the Market sets the prices, meaning that not everyone can afford what they need.

You sound like a Trotskyist.

[SirRexington]

@Kalinka_ no I'm certainly not a trotskyist. I'm closely alligned with a libertarian socialist. And I support socialist market economies.

Socialism and communism inherently reject command economies... It's just a substitute for corporations. The government becomes a monopoly.

[Kalinka_]

The government has a monopoly on everything but, surprise, their priority is the well-being of its population as opposed to profits at all costs.

Socialism doesn't reject Command Economies and there's no economy in communism.