Are Leftist Politics Gov't/Media Fanatics' Version Of Religion?

[Billlewis]

. We've seen a seismic change in our priorities in recent years, one in which the Blueblood/Ivy League/Elitist Set has apparently found their own version of religious faith -- in Leftist Regressive ideology, and the unfortunate governmental monstrosity that will inevitably accompany it. With the obvious goal of overwhelming and subsequently tearing down the various institutions we've relied on for well over a century and replacining them with a kind of bastardized combination of Red China/Soviet Union/Eurozone behemoth, a sizable percentage of the population is apparently worshipping this coveted --- and repeatedly debunked --- destination with religious like fervor.

Updates

1 y

This just in -- a shadowy entity that along with hundreds of others comprises 'Permanent Washington' also know. as the 'Deep State'. deleted a post that was unflattering to her 'https://www. breitbart. com/politics/2024/07/24/kamala-cover-up-govtrack-deletes-website-ranking-harris-2019s-most-liberal-senator/

[nightdrot]

Without meaning to offend, this would appear to be mostly an opinion expressed as a question without much analytical or epistemological rigor behind it.

To start, the terms "right," "left" and so forth, are not terribly helpful. The usage comes out of the French revolution, when supporters of a republic sat to the left of the Speaker's chair in the National Assembly, while supporters of the Church and the monarchy sat to the right. While these are common usage in contemporary politics, they actually don't say very much.

Second of all, there is a link between culture and politics that is unavoidable. The culture inspires the politics and the politics tends to reinforce the culture. However, this tends not to be a formal structure so much as an unconscious process.

The totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century - Communism, Fascism, National Socialism - were called "secular religions" because they specified specific tenets and doctrines and applied them across history. By contrast, contemporary "leftists," if such they can be called, merely apply a series of policies that are often unconnected to one another in any coherent way.

Further complicating this is the fact that the politics of the moment - on both sides of the aisle - is more populist than anything. Populism is NOT a schematic philosophy and as such has no coherent policy agenda. Rather it tends to a mishmash of policies drawn from both conservative and liberal - as Americans define those terms - schools.

Thus, the recent acceptance speech by Senator J. D. Vance of the GOP Vice-presidential nomination. It was a speech that could just as easily been given by a Democrat in the mid-1980s during the Reagan years. Thus Senator Vance's opposition to free trade (see also NAFTA) - and by implication free markets - his opposition to "big business" and his tendency to a resurgent isolationism. (See also his stance on Ukraine.)

The merits of these positions may be argued or not, but what they cannot be called is conservative as Americans have historically defined that term. Suffice to add that beyond a seething resentment against a vaguely defined "establishment" and "elites," there is no coherent theology here that might be called a religion. (Not to mention that they are being articulate, with enthusiasm, by a party that is supposed to be conservative and that opposed much of this as recently as the 1990s.)

Bottom line, history shows us what a religion is - indeed, even a secular religion (see again, Communism, National Socialism, Fascism) - and what the nation is seeing now is not that. It is a rather a philosophically vapid expression of contemporary resentments across the aisle of both parties. Parties that are themselves not typically ideological but are rather coalitions of geographical regions and interests.

[Juxtapose]

You can reliably tell somebody's positions on a lot of things by their political party or if they lean right or left. People on the left are more likely going to support abortion with very little exceptions for example.

The Democrats in America have completely lost their mind and are pretty much full-blown Marxists now. They can't tell you what a woman is and they think men can get pregnant. They want white people to feel guilty for being white. They want the border wide open, etc.

These weirdos are not classical liberals at all and classical liberals essentially have to work with the right-wing now because the establishment left-wing is so batshit crazy.

[nightdrot]

@Juxtapose Really? Where does Senator Susan Collins, a Republican, stand on the abortion question? Where does Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat, stand on that very same question.

You are not wrong that our parties generally group together people of similar viewpoints, but there is not universal consistency and the nature of the parties in any given part of the country is as much an accident of history as it is of any coherent philosophical or ideological viewpoint.

As to Marxism, please define. Where stood the USSR on gay rights, for example? Indeed, where stands China now on ethnic and civil rights. Though in fairness it has been said that contemporary China is less interested in Marx in theory than Lenin in practice. (Even that begs the question - you cite Marx? Whose?)

By the way, please outline for me the definition and central tenets of Marxism.

Again, I do not mean to offend, but Americans throw words around without much grasp of their historical, philosophical and epistemological meaning, The net result - and this especially intensified by the nature of contemporary technology - is a dialogue of the deaf with epithets as a substitute for reasoned argument.

[Juxtapose]

Exceptions prove the rule rather than disprove the rule actually.

Marxism is following the teachings of Karl Marx to its logical conclusion. Look at the 100 million corpses communism has produced and there lies your answer. It is a death cult.

[nightdrot]

@Juxtapose The ideas of Marx define Marxism. The results of Marxism have been repeated by any number of other ideologies across history. Again, you claim the Democrats are Marxist, so define Marxism.

As to the exceptions - see also Donald Trump on abortion across the last 6 years. There is a line from a play - "I'm a man of no convictions. At least I think I am." That ain't Marxism, but it ain't principle either.

[Billlewis]

That, Sir, is about the best endorsement of Donald John Trump as I've heard since he came down the escalator in June, 2015', nine grueling years and about a ten thousand or so coordinated media and tech attacks against he, you, I, and millions more U. S citizens.

[nightdrot]

Well, to borrow another quote, "If you don't believe in something, it is not that you believe in nothing. It is that you believe in anything."

Please don't get me wrong, I have worked for three Members of Congress - all Republicans - and plan to vote for Trump. However, there is value in self-awareness and I will not pretend that he is what he is not.

For my part, I was born at the end of 1963 and to date, the best President in my lifetime was Mr. Reagan. He too, was not a conservative in the historical Burkean sense, but his statecraft was shrewd and principled.

Mr. Trump, by contrast, was a fairly non-descript figure in policy terms. His strength being his ability to agitate and aggravate as a political motive force. Not exactly a man of principle.

As far as if you are referring to the abortion question, I ask only that you consider the philosophical and practical cultural questions of a society that regards the unborn child as the moral equivalent of hamburger. That is what we have and you need only look about you to see some of the practical cultural reverberations of that perspective.

Mr. Trump both echoes and reflects those reverberations.

[Juxtapose]

Trump is allowed to change his mind lol. 6 years is a long time.

Read his book yourself and see how societies have adapted its teachings. It's not good.

[nightdrot]

@Juxtapose Yes, change his mind for sure. That only begs the question if that change of mind is for the better or the worse. Change can be good or bad, principled or not.

[handsomelad70]

Typical 84 IQ Trumpster fantasy.

[ProbablyClueless]

Pretty much; it's very reactionary. Basically, left wing ideas started being associated with empathy and a more virtuous way to live in the mid 1900s, when nationalism and colonialism had led to some truly horrifying conflicts and conditions, largely in service of Western elites.

The common man looked at what was happening in the third world and very reasonably concluded that the standard of living in Europe, Australia, America, etc was excellent, but that it didn't need to be sustained by the level of suffering that was occurring. Especially thanks to advances in technology, but it was mostly a moral thing. We simply didn't need to enslave, torture and destroy entire cultures, just so we could marinate our pork with special seasonings. We could obtain them in more ethical ways.

The "Left" as we understand it today took hold because it was fighting against organizations like the East India Tea Company, and the idea that a 12 year old child could work in a factory.

[RedInnocent69]

You’ve just illustrated the poverty of contemporary neo-conservative thought. You have conservative populists using religion to prop up the Blueblood/Ivy League/Elitist Set, often to their own detriment, or at the very least, to their less proportionate advantage. Case in point, income tax cuts proportionately benefit the high-income and the ultra-high net worth, giving them more to spend but also contributing to inflation and increasing government deficits. On the other hand, trade tariffs get passed on to consumers which disproportionately impact the lower and middle class, also contributing to inflation, and only partially offsetting increases to government deficits.

[FunkyMonkee]

They are the new cult. All the need is an armband with an insignia on it, and/or a sheet and hood and somebody that knows how to build crosses.

[Billlewis]

I know, right? They're always calling us Nazis, but in truth, they're much, much closer to that comparison than we've ever been.

[FunkyMonkee]

Exactly! What have WE destroyed? NOTHING! How much hate do we spew? Hardly any! Mostly for them and the stupid, destructive things they say and do!! Do we resort to guns to solve our "problems". No! Do we do crazy shit like spraying everything orange (Funny! I thought they believed that orange was bad!), throwing soup on great works of art, holding up traffic for miles around by gluing our hands to the road? No!! Do we blindly believe everything media tells us to believe? No!!

[strateguy632]

the rules are like religion, insted of Christianity they made rules.

what they let you say... the bullying is... a cult style. so yes. they oppose religion but want the benefits of religion so they invented unimportant rules.

[Astarlessnightsky]

Like what? The absurd idea of saving the planet from pollution or the monstrosity of granting everyone enough to live on?

Truly an unrealist ideology.

[PeterLegg91]

I believe left wing politics is a form of dictation though, as if you question or criticise religion, race etc you get arrested or lose your job 😠 and they take away your freedom of speech if your right wing :(

[handsomelad70]

Blueblood/Ivy League/Elitist Set=anyone who uses multisyllabic words, doesn't look like a greasy, in-bred goober, and brushes, flosses and showers more than twice monthly.

[Anonymous]

Is this particular religion run by cute girls? And will I be considered a nasty pervert until I can prove otherwise? Count me in.

[OhLongJohnsoning]

You realized you just described the right, right?

You're just too blind to see it