Is there a viable political left in America?

[SteppingRazor]

I'm sure a lot of folks here have checked out Politicalcompass.org in the past to see where they sit on its x-y axis. If not, please do so! It's often enlightening. I personally sit way the hell out there in the bottom left-hand corner, the furthest reaches of the left-libertarian wasteland occupied by few politicians (but hey, according to political compass, Gandhi and the Dali Lama are in my quadrant, so what the hey).

But on a recent revisiting of the site -- something I'm inclined to do every now and again out of morbid curiosity and self-examination -- I noticed that they've plotted all of the 2007 presidential primary candidates. Check it out, please, before reading on:

http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007


Kinda startling, no? There's a massive swath of political thought that is wholly unrepresented in American politics (thankfully, in the case of that scary upper-left quadrant, but the upper-right is little better). Let me say that, in other threads across DU, despite my predilections for bomb-throwing leftist politics, I'm often one of the DUers who is advocating prudence over purity == for example, while she's far from my first choice, you can bet I'm checking "Hillary" in the general if she wins the primary. But, this really does say something about what passes for political discussion in our country.

CNN will invite, say, Pat Robertson on to give an opinion from the perspective of people whose politics run just barely to the left of Goebbels. But when they get the response, what "leftists" do they go to? Hillary? Obama?

When's the last time you saw, say, Noam Chomsky on CNN?

Now, mind you, I don't see this as an intentional vast right-wing conspiracy among the media. I'm a journalist myself, and I know too many journalists to take that accusation seriously. I think it simply doesn't occur to them that the opposite of Robertson is someone like Chomsky, not someone like, say, Bill Clinton.

That Politicalcompass.org graph may be slightly off, but its point is spot on -- the war we fight in American politics is over a small amount of territory in the upper-right quadrant. So, here's my question: How did left and libertarian thought get so thoroughly dismissed in America, and what can be done to resuscitate it?

I can understand the more civil libertarian aspects of my political philosophy not being addressed by the government -- government is inherently somewhat authoritarian, and libertarianism is the opposite. But how did we get to the point where we're just fighting over a minuscule space of the political spectrum?

Yes, there is a big difference between Democrats and Republicans. But it could certainly be much bigger. What happened to the left in this country? Is it simply a 50-year cold war with authoritarian leftists that destroyed any hope of a viable left in this country? Is it the failure of the New Left in the 1960s? Something else? Something more? What are your thoughts on the issue?

[DutchLiberal]

1. I looked at the graph, but I could've told you that before. There's no 'left' in the US,

at least, that's what we in Holland always say. We explain an election between Democrats and Republicans as choosing between a right-winger and an extremely-right-winger.

Of course, *informed* people -like me, ahem!- know there's much difference between Democrats and there are left-wingers like Kucinich and Gravel. But still, I have the impression those two are viewed as 'really far left' by most Americans. In Holland, they could easily fit in with our Green Party and they would still have the Socialist Party (which almost tripled their number of seats in parliament from 9 to 25 in the last election) to their left.

[SteppingRazor]

2. OK, but, why?

I'm glad you get where I'm coming from here, but what I can't understand is how my country goot to the position it's in now, and what can be done to rectify the situation.

[DutchLiberal]

4. Well, I'm only an outsider who hasn't lived through it, but...

I think it started in the 1980's, when Reagen became president. The major conservative setback. Throwing away the progressive ideals of the 1960's and '70's. The Democrats' reaction to this was to freak out and found the DLC. Am I right?

(Don't flame me, I'm only guessing.) O8)

[SteppingRazor]

7. No flames, that's a fine answer! Here's my problem with it though...

The progressive ideals of the 1960s, on a political level, were a colossal failure. We came in with Kennedy, then Johnson, and the end of the 1960s saw two liberal candidates -- Humphrey and the even-more-liberal McGovern -- get walloped by Nixon. While the New Left was certainly the most noteworthy political movement during its time, in terms of long-term success, the 1960s were far more successful for conservatives. Republicans succeeded in purging their more-liberal wing, led by northeast Republicans like the Rockefeller clan, leaving a Republican Party that built on the conservatism of Goldwater, warping it even further by the time Reagan took power in 1980.

So, I see Reagan's ascension as more a logical outcome of the 1960s than its antithesis.

[DutchLiberal]

11. Then how do you explain Jimmy Carter's election? He was pretty left, wasn't he?

[SteppingRazor]

15. Yes, but that was the first election after Nixon.

No GOP president could poossibly have been elected in 1976. And by 1980, a mere four years later, the country had all but forgotten the GOP's depredations, electing Reagan by staggering margins and then re-electing him by margins even wider.

As noted in the link in my OP, even our Democrats aren't particularly leftist, and yet it seems that, since Kennedy and Johnson, the only way a Democrat gets in the White House is by piggybacking on a GOP scandal. I mean, I think a Democrat will certainly get in the White House in 2008, but is it only because Bush is such a lying, cheating, greedheaded fuckstick?

[Rowdyboy]

31. I was a college senior during that elcetion (1976)....Jimmy Carter was one of the more conservative

candidates who ran that year. My personal choice was senator Fred Harris of Oklahoma:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_R._Harris

Harris' positions on issues were largely those of an unabashed liberal; he appealed to the party's activist base which had helped to nominate George McGovern in 1972; this stand had considerably less appeal to major contributors who had observed McGovern's 49- state landslide defeat four years earlier and were looking for a candidate who seemed more electable. Harris' underfunded campaign soon faltered; along with his inability to raise significant sums of money his support among the party's liberal activist base was split with Arizona Representative Morris Udall. The nomination and eventual November victory went to former governor of Georgia Jimmy Carter, who ran as a moderate

When he dropped out after New Hampshire, I switched to representative Mo Udall of Arizona, who was also far more liberal than Carter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Udall

Carter's win was by 1%, which was no more than 7,500 votes. He won 37% to Udall's 36%, gaining one more convention delegate than Udall. Despite the small margins, Carter got the headlines and a further boost to his momentum, pulling away from Udall and the other candidates. In the end, Udall finished second in the New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, New York, Michigan, South Dakota, and Ohio primaries, and won the caucuses in his home state of Arizona, while running even with Carter in the New Mexico caucuses. Udall finished a distant second place to Carter at the Democratic National Convention, where his name was placed in nomination by Archibald Cox, and Udall's speech received great applause from his supporters.

Several other candidates in 1976 were more liberal than Carter: Birch Bayh, Hubert Humphrey, Frank Church and Jerry Brown all held more liberal positions than Carter.

Please don't misunderstand. I admire Jimmy Carter tremendously. But, in the party's primary that year, he was one of the more conservative choices.

[DutchLiberal]

33. Thank you, I never knew that.

Would you say that, nowadays, he takes more liberal stances than when he was president?

[Rowdyboy]

39. An excellent and very perceptive question......My answer is....sometimes......

I know that seems to be a dodge. In reality, he governed as a moderate. I celebrated my 23rd birthday one month after his inauguration and I remember being disappointed. I had hoped Barbara Jordan, the fabulous congresswoman from Texas, might be his attorney general and instead, he nominated a personal friend-Griffin Bell. His other appointments were likewise unappealing to a young progressive and I found myself very critical of President Carter's administration.

Twelve years later, I was MUCH more understanding of Bill Clinton after his election. I guess its all part of growing up.

[Armstead]

27. Culture Wars

The economic left didn't get wiped away. It got buried under the culture wars, which as a trumped up phony reaction to the cultural and and political excesses of the New Left.

[truedelphi]

28. Can i point out that in my not so humble opinion

If you reach back into the nineteen sixties and show us what went on there, you also need to at least mention that three of our leaders were killed.

John, Martin And Bobby.

I mean, where would the Republican party be if Nixon, Reagan and George Bush SR had been offed before calendar year 1982??

And the Establishment went all out against the Black Panthers, who were not only revolutionary lefists to the core but had tangible achievements they could point to: day care centers, neighborhood watch groups, discussion groups, political parties and leadership.

An early Am shoot out in which the Chicago Police used over 200 rounds of ammo vs the Blank Panthers with one bullet fired in return - well, it's not easy to be a leftist. (All the Blank Panthers present were killed)

It's my belief that if the Black Panthers had not been destroyed, you would have never seen the drugs hit the inner city the way that occurred during the 1980's. That would have been anathema to the Black Panthers.

[SteppingRazor]

32. All excellent points. The assassination of most of the left's would-be leaders...

certainly could have set the movement back a generation at least, if not more.

[balantz]

57. What you point out here

is to me extremely important in understanding the unfolding of U.S. culture and politics. It would appear that the present coup of our govenment and cutlure has been underway for a very long time.

[truedelphi]

73. I had a drama teacher back in my Chicago days (1971-72)

And she was telling some of us in her inner circle that "this government has some big plans underway for us in the very near future."

Nixon was planning of possibly testing school age children in a rather Minority Report style way to determine which among them might be criminals. He was going to model this program on what occurred in the Soviet Union. There, parents had their chioldren taken from them and no one knew where they went. The psychologist in charge was named Hoefschniker or something similiar to that.

But Nixon was impeached and the Carter years put the neocon plans awry. It also was an impedance that Reagan survived the Hinckley-CIA bullet. So for a decade or more, I believe that the plans were shelved.

Otherwise, I believe that 9/11 might have occurred on Sept 11th 1991 rather than when it did.

[balantz]

75. Yes that all makes sense.

I was born in 1962 and all of my life I have been indoctrinated along with the rest of us for this set-up. The things you say about this being a decade off makes sense. No wonder Cheney is such a grump-ass, he was hoping to be retired long before now. They probably had the thing lined up for the millenium when us "Western Christians" were expecting all of the apocalypse bullshit that was shoved down our throats. Dubya wasn't supposed to have this job originally, they had to pull him up and groom the dumb-shit for the show.

[Prophet 451]

48. Cold War training

I'm a Brit but I've come to much the same conclusions as our Dutch friend above. Kucinich would make a fairly normal member of our Liberal party (don't know enough about Gravel to say).

To be honest, I think the main reason there is no left in the US is a leftover from the Cold War. The entirety of the US spent about fifty years hating on the USSR. The result was that most of the US population were trained to see anything genuinely leftist as communist and therefore, of the devil. Essentially, since communism is at the extreme-left, the US spent fifty years training it's people to shift to the extreme-right.

[DutchLiberal]

61. I thought of that too, but there are a few problems with that assumption.

First, we in Western Europe had to fear the USSR as well. Still, there were many Socialist, Marxist and even Maoist parties in Europe (at least in Holland). We, in Europe looked to the US for protection from the USSR as well, but we still did have those parties. The US did not. Why?

Also, leftist political movements were already very active in post-World War Europe. In the US, there wasn't a 'real' left-wing movement to begin with. Except maybe FDR, but he was decried as a communist by the opposition as well.

So I think it goes deeper than 'just' Cold War (although that contributed significantly).

[Prophet 451]

79. Good points

I don't think that Western Europe ever had the same visceral loathing of the USSR but that's probably besides the point.

Obviously, there's a confluence of factors here. I suspect the causes (in no particular order) include:
- Militarism. Nations that hero-worship their military tend to slant right. Again though, that's largely post-WWI.
- National creation myths. The US has near deified it's founders and the US was born in war (as were most nations, of course, but this one was more recent). I find that has tended to lead to a mythologising of the founders as warrior-mystics of a kind.
- The mythology of the Old West. From virtually the beginning of colonising the West, the "heros" exported back to the East were tough-talking gun-fighters, creating a hero in the national psyche that was aggressive, blunt and tended to look for simplistic solutions.
- Religiosity. Since the US entered WWI later than Europe, they experianced less losses and, as a result, there was never the widespread loss of trust in the churches that there was in much of Europe. As a tendancy, not a rule, highly religious nations tend to slant right in their politics.
- The American Genocide. Yes, I'm talking about the Native Americans.

[DutchLiberal]

81. My thoughts on this

I agree with the national creation myths about the Old West etc. But I have to disagree with religiosity. Europe was still very deeply religious after WW II. If anything, I think the war may have even strengthened people's faith in God and church (after all, that was the only source of strength they could turn to). The abandoning of the church and (traditional) religion only began in the 1960's, because of the newer, looser morale. This new lifestyle and way of thinking that was very leftist originally came from the US! It started there and from there it came to Europe. But whereas Europe has continued that trend at least in certain (legislative) areas (most countries are far more conservative nowadays, too, but they still are, in comparison, more liberal than the US), while the US had a conservative setback that didn't allow for the liberal lifestyle and legislation Europe had.

[Prophet 451]

84. You may be right

I may well be assuming Britain's experiance (where religiousness plummeted after WWI) as European when it isn't.

[Apollo11]

49. Slightly over-simplified and unbalanced analysis

In the Presidential election of 1984, Ronald Reagan won 49 out of 50 states.

The Democratic candidate (Walter Mondale) won only 1 State: Minnesota (Mondale's home state).

It was the worst result of any national ticket in the history of the Democratic Party.

Surely it is only reasonable in such a situation to think about how to be more successful?

In a 2-party system (as in the USA), there is no point in always coming in second place.

So I completely understand why people like Al Gore and Bill Clinton started the DLC.

[RainDog]

34. my pov

but first -- Dag, friendje uit het Nederlands! Hebben zie ein friendje dat ik kunnen betrowen? (het spite mei, omdat ik laangzaam Nederlands niet hebben gespracht.) Ik moet uit deze staten gaan. Bush wil allemaal dood machen.... it's a humanitiarian thing... :scared: I don't know if I'm kidding or not.

okay, well, back to... I think the civil rights movement pulled the dixiecrats into the republican party. the religious right arose at this same time. They have made it possible for the repuke party to get elected. Kevin Phillips has acknowledged he helped to plan the southern strategy for Nixon. Europe doesn't have the same sort of religious lunatics getting serious consideration. These fundies are also apocolyptics. They are creating a "self-fulfilling" prophecy by their middle eastern policies.

also, yes, major liberal leaders died. JFK, MLK, RFK, Medgar Evers. The left was blamed for people like the SDS, who really caused fear because they were bombing places in the U.S. The U.S. is far more isolated than any nation in Europe. We only hear English, for the most part, see U.S. tv, and do not get a variety of opinions. It is SO TRUE what you said about the lack of ANY left voice on mainstream tv. The only tv news I watch regularly is Democracy Now!

imo, the U.S. has reacted to Vietnam as tho it was germany after the 1st WW loss. Rather than examine its policies, the U.S. has chosen beligerent militarism b/c of the unwillingness to accept that the entire cold war strategy was not good for this nation. And I do think that WWII had a very diff. consequence for the U.S. than for Europe. Europe had to rebuild entire cities. The communists were essential in the fight against Nazis and they got a seat at the political table b/c of. The U.S. became a major power b/c of this war, and the right response to communism was McCarthy. The scare tactics worked then and they work now.

Americans are fed a lot of b.s. about how they are so different and have it so much better than other nations. this, too, is b.s. because in social democracies there are still very wealthy people, but there is also a basic level of human rights.

[DutchLiberal]

63. Good points about Europe after WWII. I might add,

that there also was more room for leftist policies after WW II in Europe, because of the need to lure the common people away from communism. Europe was ruined, whole countries had to be rebuild. It would have been very persuasive to join the communists, who promised to make everything better --but then in Soviet style! To prevent this from happening, the established parties had to come up with their own social programs to make sure the common people stayed clear of radical communism.

Also, you're not entirely right about Europe having no religious fundies who determine policy. That's not true. Have you followed the news about Polish politics, lately? Their policies were very anti-gay and very anti-abortion and more of that because of the ultra-conservative religiously-inspired twins Kazyncski (president and prime-minister). Also, the Vatican is in Europe and the Pope has much influence in Italy, which is still very conservative when it comes to a woman's right to choose, gays, stem cell research etc. And even in The Netherlands, the anti-gay and anti-abortion fundamentalist Christian Union is now for the first time in history in a government coalition with the Christian-Democrats and the Social-Democrats.

Thanks for the nice words by the way. :hi: I had to laugh, though. It looks and sounds more like German, but you did well enough for me to understand. :applause:

[LWolf]

3. I like hearing from an outside perspective, thanks. n/t

[DutchLiberal]

6. Thank you. If Kucinich doesn't make it to being President, can we have him?

;-)

[LWolf]

17. I think we'll keep him, lol.

Either that, or we'll have to come with him. :D

[DutchLiberal]

21. Of course, you would be welcome.

:toast:

[caseycoon]

37. You'll have to take me too! LOL! n/t

[DutchLiberal]

60. You're welcome as well!

:toast:

[rucky]

5. America is right/authoritarian

for the most part.

The Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Ghandi - they're all leaders who've fought clear and obvious oppression on their home turf. We're too wrapped up in our own lives, so there are not enough people who think about oppression until they're directly affected by it. We're not there yet, but we seem to be on the express bus. If we practiced empathy and learned from history a little better, we could have a leader from the left before people really suffer, instead of after.

[SteppingRazor]

8. So, we're not left/libertarian because we haven't suffered enough? I dunno about that either...

A lot of socialist parties came up in Europe at the turn of the last century -- about the same time as we were seeking alternatives to the rapacious greed of the Gilded Age. And even then, leftist reformers resulted in a Red Scare back in the 1920s.


I kind of feel like Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine. Remember that scene where him and the Columbine dad keep trying to explain why there's so much gun violence in America, and they can't? This question of America's very basic nature as a political entity kind of haunts me in the same way, especially given the fact that our nation was founded as a response to conservative authoritarianism.

[zeemike]

9. It is not that the left does not exist, but are not represented

In the political world.
And the one ting that makes any political movement active is communications between the leadership and the rank and file.
And when you have the media owned and controlled by the opposing faction it makes them important.
DK will only be asked about UFOs and never given a chance to talk abut things that may resonate with the larger audience, and the right wing slogans will be repealed over and over again and reinforced wherever possible.
And that is the nature of the beast.

[SteppingRazor]

12. Yes, but as DutchLiberal noted earlier...

in a European country, DK would be a typical Green Party member, not even far to the left, where the Socialist Party would make him seem conservative by comparison. So, what passes for the "far left" in our country isn't even far left at all.

And further, as I aluded to in my OP, I don't think this is simply a matter of media ownership, particularly as it seems to be a systemic problem that predates the media conglomerates of the modern age.

50 years ago, most newspapers were independent and family-owned, and there were much more of them, with even medium-sized towns having both a morning and evening paper. But even then, we saw no real American left in places of political power.

[DutchLiberal]

16. Actually, Kucinich wouldn't be seen as 'conservative' by comparison,

because our Green Party is left-wing, but very progressive. In other words: they don't shy away from things like globalization or reform of the health care system etc, they just want to make sure it benefits the people instead of the corporations. The Socialist Party, which is -on a traditional left-right scale- more to the left, is also much more conservative.

So we have a progressive left-wing party (Green Party, where Kucinich would belong to) and a conservative left-wing party (Socialist Party).

[SteppingRazor]

19. Thanks for the clarification!

Am I still correct in saying, though, that Kucinich wouldn't be seen in Europe as a "far left" character?

[DutchLiberal]

22. Maybe by people in the far-right, but generally speaking: no, he wouldn't.

[zeemike]

24. No you are absolutely right there

DK is not "far left" he is just about right for me.

[zeemike]

23. Can you imagine today seeing

A naked Iraqi child running from a burning village, of the chief of police executing a captive in front to the camera?
While the press may not have been liberal during Viet Nam they were not completely silent ether.
And one of our greatest presidents was called a leftist...FDR. And did more for people than anyone in modern times, and was loved by most people for it.

[zeemike]

10. Self deleat

.

[Tejanocrat]

13. Ask me again in two months when we'll have seen how Edwards does in the Iowa caucus...

[laststeamtrain]

14. Remember when Michael Kinsley 'represented the left' on Crossfire?

Absurd.

The left hasn't disappeared, it's just not on TV, therefore it's not 'real'.

It's not just the dictatorship of the military-industrial-complex we live under. It's the military-industrial-media complex.

It's hard to escape.The power is all concentrated in a few hands. What they're selling is the 'American Empire'. Neo-conservatives sell it, Neo-Liberals sell it. Media makes it seem inevitable. But is it?

It seems to me that 'revolutions', like earth quakes, seem to come from nowhere.

Is a 'velvet' revolution possible? A new new deal?

I don't know, that's for sure.

[SteppingRazor]

18. I agree that the left has been poorly represented by big media....

but as I said to Zeemike, above, the lack of a real American left, at least one with any representation in Washington, certainly predates media conglomeration. It can't just be that pinheads like Kinsley are what passes for the left on CNN, because the lack of a real American left predates CNN, or even cable TV. Hell, it seems to predate TV entirely.

[truedelphi]

30. I was startled about three weeks ago when the MSM had a story on Edwards

I had not seen him on TV for about a month.

The MSM ws fixated on the Obama/Clinton thing - and no one else was alive and in politics according to their vision.

[DutchLiberal]

20. It might have something to do with 'the American dream', Horatio Alger, etc.

I'm just guessing here, but I believe we in Europe don't have this myth we all faithfully believe in, that, no matter what the circumstances are, we will someday become filthy rich. That's why we have an expansive social network of laws and regulations to take care of the underprivileged. Maybe most Americans think that, when somebody lives in misery, they deserved it? I sure had conversations with Americans that took that turn.

:shrug:

[zeemike]

25. That is an interesting thought

This country unlike most of Europa was founded on the great westward expansion and we may not have gotten over it yet even though there is no where new to expand to.
And I think we were OK with it until the Neo Cons decided to make us an empire and trash the basic belief in this country of not being a nation of conquest and empire...
But again it is the media that directs the thinking of us, as sorry as that may be.

[Armstead]

26. It's the Media and Democratic Elites -- The True Center has been ignored

I think to really evaluate that, there should be a box in the center, a True Center, rather than four corners.

IMO that would be where the majority of Americans would be placed.

There is a strong libertarian and a strong liberal strain in the population. It depends on the issue, but most people would probably sum up their philosophy as "Leave me alone personally, but we do need to have systems to promote the common good."

Where people might fall on that, depends on the issue. heck, I'm a raging liberal, but as far as an issue like gun control, I agree with the saying "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."....On gay rights, libertarian is the same as liberal. It's basically "Live and let live."

The problem is that the Media do push a corporate conservative agenda and the Democrats are afraid to get their hands dirty with progressive populism. If the democrats were to actually embrace the principles of liberal populism again, I believe the people would respond and that cluster would move significantly towards the REAL center (not the DLC corporate conservative center).

[GreenArrow]

29. no, there's a faux left

as represented by folks like Edwards and Dean.

[polichick]

35. There's a viable left base without a party. nt

[NGinpa]

36. Closet Racists

What happened to the left in this country?

The left had support in the sixties when it dealt mainly with labor versus corporation/owners on a general basis. However when the left crossed over into racial equality areas and social equity areas, many of the closet racists and closet "I am a religious privileged person" jumped to the right which was offering them not-so-subtle hints that the right was on their side in these areas. And here we still stand.

[crispini]

38. Thank you for this thoughtful and interesting thread! nt

[CK_John]

40. No. n/t

[eallen]

41. They're only guessing where those politicians would fall, if they took the survey.

There are many questions on that survey that they simply have no way of knowing how most candidates would answer. My suspicion is that if we could persuade the candidates to take that survey, there would be more spread than the projection shows.

Though they likely have Alan Keyes about right.

:hippie:

[personman]

43. "they simply have no way of knowing"

Pretty sure most politicians positions on the issues aren't secret.

[personman]

42. For the record, Chomsky doesn't view it as a conspiracy:

Just elites serving elite interests.

"If I'm analyzing capitalism and I point out General Motors tries to maximize profit, that's not a conspiracy theory. That's analysis." - Noam Chomsky

Personally, I'm not interested in conspiracy theories because I think most of the worst stuff is done right out in the open, often publicly justified some way or another.

This seems ironic to me...

"How did left and libertarian thought get so thoroughly dismissed in America?"

You are expressing frustration at the lack of a Left, and the marginalization and misrepresentation of leftist ideas and leading figures, like Noam Chomsky...

"When's the last time you saw, say, Noam Chomsky on CNN? Now, mind you, I don't see this as an intentional vast right-wing conspiracy among the media. I'm a journalist myself, and I know too many journalists to take that accusation seriously."

and then you misrepresent his views, characterize him more or less as an extremist partisan conspiracy nut, and try to distance yourself from him?

This is sort of illustrative of the problem...it's not much different to me from right-wingers who rant about the evils of socialism and the glory of the free market, and then wonder why they have no health insurance...

A lot of people (I'm not saying this is you, I don't know you that well...) seem indoctrinated or brainwashed against their own interests.

"Education is a system of imposed ignorance." - Noam Chomsky
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything one learned in school." - Albert Einstein

[SteppingRazor]

50. Wow, that's a lot of words you put in my mouth.

I did not at any time call Chomsky an "extremely partisan conspiracy nut." Nor did I say that Chomsky thought the media was part of some "vast right-wing conspiracy." That line was directed instead at the many DUers -- and members of the left in general -- who have a belief that the media is controlled by right-wing interests and intentionally puts a right-wing slant on the news.

If my OP was in any way confusing on that point, making it seem as though I attributed those views to Chomsky or any other particular individual, I apologize.

[personman]

52. Heh, shit, sorry.

My bad. Complete misinterpretation on my part.

[SteppingRazor]

59. Totally cool!

Like I said, I probably wasn't as clear as I could have been. :hi:


And I didn't mean to pick on Chomsky, I just tried to come up with someone as far to the left as Pat Robertson is to the right. I didn't mean for "far to the left" to have any sort of negative connotation, and Chomsky's just the first guy I thought of.

[DutchLiberal]

66. Ahem: the media IS controlled by right-wing interests. That's not a conspiracy, that's an analysis.

[SteppingRazor]

68. This is straying somewhat from the OP, but here's where I disagree with that...

the media is not controlled by right-wing interests. It is controlled by profit-motivated interests, and often it takes a very short-term view of profits, as do nearly all businesses in a laissez faire capitalist system (e.g. Despite the billions it will cost them in lawsuits down the road, your typical corporation will gladly pollute waterways to save a few bucks).

[DutchLiberal]

70. Tucker, Beck, Hannity, Malkin, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Matthews: the right-wing is omni-present in media

And that's for a reason.

[SteppingRazor]

71. Yeah, but you're just picking out a bunch of names from Fox...

the only channel that certainly is conservative (Hannity, O'Reilly, and I guess occasionally Malkin fills in for someone, but she doesn't have a TV show of her own on any network).

Then you site Tucker as evidence that MSNBC has a right-wing slant, despite the fact that it also has Olbermann. Chris Matthews is also an MSNBC host, but for every liberal that calls him a right-wing hack, I'll show you a conservative that calls him a left-wing moonbat.

All you're left with is Glenn Beck, whose poorly rated Headline News show was an obvious response to the huge success of Fox News -- which only proves my point, that these networks are interested in profit, not politics. CNN didn't install Beck as a host because it has a conservative slant. It did so because, over at Fox, a conservative slant was putting tons of eyeballs on the screen.

[DutchLiberal]

83. Oh, come on, for cryin' out loud!

CNN also has Wolf Blitzer, for instance. And what about Tim Russert (abc)? There are tons of other persons I see in American media of whom I don't know the name, who are also always sucking up to the right and trashing the left. But this isn't about names or persons. It's about a general trend. There is a trend in American mainstream media to glorify anything the right does and to ridicule everything the left does. E.g.: Why do you think Kucinich only gets questions about his younger wife, but nobody asks Thomson such a question?

If you don't think the American media is owned by the right-wing, you shouldn't have to bother to start this thread and you might as well shut it down, because you have not been paying attention.

[SteppingRazor]

85. But Blitzer and Russert are the same case as Matthews.

The right accuses them of being left just as much as the left accuses them of being right. How right-wing can Blitzer be, when he's a constant figure in Democratic circles in D.C.? (Well, DLC-type, third way circles, granted, but that certainly doesn't make him a far-right ideologue.) As for Russert, the guy's just about the worst interview on the Sunday press shows, despite helming the granddaddy of them all, but again, you'll find as much critique of him on the right as you do on the left.

I go back to my earlier point, about how the left is a complete non-entity in American media (the Robertson/Chomsky comparison of my OP). I don't think there's necessarily a right-wing slant, there's a view that people like Hillary and Obama are the left wing, and anyone further out than that is a nut. My initial question partially focused on why this is the case. I don't think it's the media intentionally trying to ostracize the left. I think it never even occurs to them that there's this huge swath of the political spectrum that has been left uncovered.

As for your last sentence, about me not paying attention, I'm here on DU, aren't I? And as a member of the American media myself, I'm guessing I'm probably actually more plugged into it than you are, so it's a little silly to accuse me of ignorance of the state of my own industry. Further, we've managed to get through an almost 100-post thread thus far without a single, solitary personal attack. Could we please not start now? I'd like to keep this civil. Thanks.

[DutchLiberal]

86. It's exactly because you're in the news media 'industry', that you unconsciously may have developed

a 'blind spot' for the right-wing slant and the manipulations in the US media.

This isn't about you as a person. It is about trying to figure out why there's no (?) viable left in the US. Now that's got something to do with the media, in my opinion, and that's because they are all right-winged or at least very conservative. Ask yourself this: were the media as biased against the Democrats and as slanted to the right before the rise of Murdoch's Fox News?

[personman]

72. Depends how we define right-wing.

In the global sense, the entire american political spectrum is right-wing. In this sense, I agree with you.

The prevailing usage though here in the states, is that the liberals are the left and the conservatives are the right.

SHORR: Let me get back to the issue of propaganda. Again, people like Newt Gingrich will point to the media in this country and label them the "liberal, cultural elite media," saying that the major networks, for example, are part of the -- are liberal, in essence.

CHOMSKY: I agree with him. They're liberals, but the liberals are the main commissars. I mean, the liberals are the ones who set the bounds, saying "this far and no further". So, the liberals are supposed to say we must balance the budget, but I think eight years, not seven years. Or, the liberals will say, well, yeah, it was a noble enterprise to go into Vietnam, but I think maybe we made a mistake, you know. That's the role of the liberal media.

If you want to talk about the truth about the world, you can't possibly get it through the liberal media, that's not their role. So, Newt Gingrich is right and, in fact, it's smart for him to denounce the liberal media because that makes it look -- it's a mutually supportive game. They love to be denounced from the right, and the right loves to denounce them, because that makes them look like courageous defenders of freedom and independence while, in fact, they are imposing all of the presuppositions of the propaganda system.

[DutchLiberal]

82. I can't make any sense out of what Chomsky is saying.

That's not how I would define 'liberalism', or 'liberal media'.

[DutchLiberal]

65. Education is a system that helps the already fortunate and advantaged prevail.

At least that's what Bourdieu said. That's because education takes a certain standard to which students have to live up. But students who don't come from a privileged background, will already have a disadvantage, a setback, compared to those who are privileged. So the underprivileged get set back even further because of this, and the fortunate will prevail because the school-system works in their advantage.

[SteppingRazor]

69. Here in America, that notion is exacerbated by the fact that ...

schools are often funded through hyperlocal property taxes, meaning that the wealthiest areas receive more money for their schools, while the poorest areas have textbooks that refer to the Soviet Union as "the coming threat" (to steal a joke from Franken).

[sandyd921]

44. Maybe a concerted 30-year effort by the right

to smear liberals and the left in general could have something to do with our invisible status in US politics and mainstream media?

[SteppingRazor]

58. But the lack of a real left-wing goes back further than 30 years.

I'm starting to think it's a combination of things -- The Cold War, the cutthroat tactics of the American right, the fizzling out of the New Left in the 1960s (and, as a subheading, the assassinations of most of the left's would-be leaders), the Myth of the American Dream, and the simple fact that American politics has evolved on a different timeline than Europe, which was more immediately affected by the works of Marx and other leftist thinkers of the 19th Century.

[Mosaic]

45. Some thoughts

The left is much better developed in Europe and Asia because they have a much richer history of social development. In the United States you have the rugged individualist and protestant work ethic that tend to stunt the growth of of a mature social compact. You need social empathy to have a true left body politic, one that can at least understand what a true liberal economic system would even be like. The corporate media intentionally keeps the United States in the dark so that the corporate system can continue to exploit the sheep. Even before cable this corporate culture worked to keep workers ignorant of alternative economic systems, this goes back to the 1800s. You can even argue the founders made this country for the elite to rule over the majority, the system was rigged from the beginning. Just some thoughts.

[JCMach1]

46. decouple them from the two parties

[rAVES]

47. Left = totalitarian basically

(not my opinion)

[SteppingRazor]

51. By "not your opinion" do you mean that it's a fact, or that it's the opinion of many Americans?

Because if the former, you're seriously mistaken. The latter, though, is certainly worth discussing, and may go back to that Cold War mentality.

[rAVES]

54. the latter. its certainly no fact.

[Apollo11]

53. OMG !! I'm a Leftist !!

Here is my result from the Political compass:

Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36

I have no problem with being in the bottom left quadrant, but I never knew I was so far away from the center!

I am suspicious about comparing my test result with the professional politicians they evaluated.

Most of the questions on the website are philosphical questions about general attitudes.

But the politicians were graded on their statements and votes on specific proposals.

I find it hard to believe that 6 out of 8 Democratic candidates are right-wing authoritarians.

[SteppingRazor]

55. Hell, I'm even worse than you.

Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56


But as for the Democratic candidates, it's important to note that they aren't really "right-wing authoritarians." Certainly, I think it's safe to say that most of them have a more authoritarian bent than a libertarian one -- it's inherent in governance. And on the economic left/right scale, it's hardly surprising that they lean a lot more toward completely unfettered free-market capitalism than they lean toward communism. When you think about it that way, it's really not too surprising to see them all up in the upper-right quadrant.

[LWolf]

56. There are 2 factors that come into play:

Politicians are placed based on actions, not words. The walk, not the talk. I prefer it that way. Talk is cheap, but the walk means something.

Of course, as voters we are placed on our "talk;" not our votes. In the U.S., many people talk further left than they vote. Again, talk is cheap, but the votes in the voting booth are a better placement. There is no way for a grid like this to know the average citizens' records in the voting booth, though, so talk is what gets the placement.

The other factor is the local versus global perspective. All those political terms mean something different to the rest of the world than they do in the U.S.. Personally, I prefer the global perspective. I don't think the U.S. is the "decider" of what is right, left, etc..

[sandyd921]

62. What are our choices as voters?

"Of course, as voters we are placed on our "talk;" not our votes. In the U.S., many people talk further left than they vote. Again, talk is cheap, but the votes in the voting booth are a better placement. There is no way for a grid like this to know the average citizens' records in the voting booth, though, so talk is what gets the placement."

Even if non-politicians could be placed on the grid based on their voting choices, the frequent lack of true left-leaning candidates on the ballot, would limit the ability to assess their actual political leanings. Of course, there are the occasional Socialists on the ballot and in some elections, Greens, however, the limitations of our electoral system mean that most perceive that voting for these candidates is a wasted effort and will not affect the result in any appreciable way.

[LWolf]

64. Our choices, as voters:

Voters who perceive a vote outside the party as not effective are limited in their choices. The best they can do is to, in each contest, pick the candidate furthest to the left. To support the left-leaning candidates in every contest.

In the current primary contest, that would be choosing between Kucinich and Gravel. It means that voters no longer allow themselves to be intimidated or shamed into voting further right than they are.

When the system is broken or corrupt in some way, everyone has a part to play. Voters are part of the problem when they give up their power in the voting booth to fear.

I don't have that problem, not having been pre-conditioned to rely on a political party. While I'm a registered Democrat, I was an independent my whole life until the 2000 selection. I voted for many Democrats, but that's because they were the candidates furthest to the left that I knew enough about to feel comfortable casting that vote for.

I don't have any trouble at all casting a vote for a 3rd party or independent candidate. Still, I'm supporting a Democrat in the current race. I'm supporting Dennis Kucinich, who is the obvious choice for me.

[sandyd921]

76. The upcoming presidential primary will offer more choices

than are typically available in many local, state, and national elections. What I think could make a significant difference in providing more meaningful choices in elections and also help people to feel like their votes really "count" is instant run-off voting. I suspect that this might also help substantially in helping to build a viable "left" in the US (going back to the topic of this thread).

[LWolf]

77. IRV, or one of the other similar systems out there,

would be great. At least one of this crop of 8 supports IRV; Dennis Kucinich. He's probably the candidate most likely to benefit from IRV, as well. :D

[DutchLiberal]

67. "I find it hard to believe that 6 out of 8 Democratic candidates are right-wing authoritarians."

I don't. I can't count the threads anymore about "treasonous Democrats", "DINOs", "right-wing enablers" etc.

[BattyDem]

74. I think several things contributed to the "weakness" of the left in this country

The assassination of three of our leaders in the 1960's. No movement, no matter how strong or popular, could survive that.

The takeover of the Republican party by fundamentalist Christians, which allowed the far-right to have a major impact in this country's politics, government and laws.

The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine combined with media consolidation, which allowed for the rise of right-wing talk radio. In a very short period of time, right-wing ideas became "mainstream" and left-wing ideas became "radical."

The demonization of liberalism in the media, the GOP and the fundamentalist Christian community. This is a big factor because people don't THINK, they just react. I know many people who insist that liberals have destroyed this country, yet when I discuss various issues with them - from public education to social security to environmental protections - their views are much closer to the liberalism than conservatism. They've been brainwashed into voting against their own self-interests.

The split in the Democratic Party. The Democrats used to be for the working class, civil rights and equal opportunities for all ... but half the party now favors the corporate class, compromises on civil rights and willingly abandons it's principles in favor of creating a "big tent." They're trying to appease both sides, yet neither side is truly happy with the party ... and it's weakened us. We no longer have an opposition to the GOP and the right-wing because the Dems are too busy opposing each other!

I don't know what the answers are - I don't know how we fix this. It took years for it to get to this point and unfortunately, it's probably going to take years to get it back. :-(

[Progressive Friend]

78. There are actually tons of leftists in the US, we just don't have a political party

[Perry Logan]

80. Fuck, yes!