the people are moving to the left

[Two Americas]

As the Democratic party politicians tack to the right, dragging the party loyalists along with them, the general public continues to move to the Left.

This should not be surprising. After all, as Democrats we do not advocate left wing politics merely to be "right," but rather because we know that they bring the greatest good to the greatest number, and because we know that the current crisis was caused by the almost complete absence of a powerful left wing over the last 30 years on the country, allowing the extreme right wing to have everything their way and give the country away to the wealthy and powerful few, and that left wing politics represent the way out of the current crisis.

Or we should know that - should we not? If we do not know that, or disagree with that, what is it that makes us Democrats?

The people in the general public, the everyday people - routinely mocked and blamed and ridiculed here - seem to be smarter than we are on this, and are moving far ahead of us and the powerful party leaders we so admire.

Poll: Just 53% Favor Capitalism Over Socialism

by Craig Brown

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2009/04/09

More Americans Question Religion's Role in Politics

Some Americans are having a change of heart about mixing religion and politics. A new survey finds a narrow majority of the public saying that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters. For a decade, majorities of Americans had voiced support for religious institutions speaking out on such issues.

The new national survey by the Pew Research Center reveals that most of the reconsideration of the desirability of religious involvement in politics has occurred among conservatives. Four years ago, just 30% of conservatives believed that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics. Today, 50% of conservatives express this view.

As a result, conservatives' views on this issue are much more in line with the views of moderates and liberals than was previously the case. Similarly, the sharp divisions between Republicans and Democrats that previously existed on this issue have disappeared.



http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=334

[BlooInBloo]

1. Naturally, it largely depends on who you ask....

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/have-nots-arent-having-it.html

[populistdriven]

15. Here is a Poll on it you can DU

http://www.970wfla.com/pages/cybervote.html

[Norrin Radd]

64. The current results of that poll look like Stockholm Syndrome

as usual.

[kenfrequed]

18. What??!!

That has to be the poorest most deceptively constructed graph I have ever seen.

A graph that shows a trend (such as that one is oriented towards) is only truly useful for chronologically oriented data. The only way for this to be useful is if they were actually measuring a series of points within those described income designations. Instead they use one point in each income grouping as an average and then attempt to draw lines between them.

Also there is no weighting by numbers as those income groups have vastly different numbers of people in them.

Additionally there is no dicussion or measurement of any mixed economic systems and whether people understood the question

[BlooInBloo]

54. (shrug) Let me know when you find a single graph....

That answers every interesting question that may be thought of.

And the notion that trendlines are only useful for time series data is just jackass stupid.

[kenfrequed]

55. Uhm...

You are aware that a trend, by definition implies change over the passage of time.

The way this thing is arranged is made to fool people into thinking we are getting increasingly capitalistic.

[BlooInBloo]

79. (facepalm)

[livefreest]

67. i agree

[Two Americas]

31. yep

The tail wags the dog.

The few dominate the many.



...

[TomClash]

2. Investors favor capitalism 5-1?

I doubt it. It depends on what you call socialism.

[girl gone mad]

3. If they had true capitalism rather than Mussolini style "capitalism'..

I'm sure they'd be singing a different tune.

[blindpig]

5. No big difference.

True capitalism, what is that? What we are experiencing is indeed 'true capitalism'. Capitalism naturally gravitates towards imperialism and monopoly. Regulating capitalism is a joke, a Punch & Judy show, it always comes back more rapacious than ever.

[blindpig]

4. Socialism is the absence of Capitalism

The socialist aspects of our current arrangement are welfare capitalism. As long as there are capitalists owning the means of production and parasitising labor you can't call it socialism.

What some are calling 'socialism for the rich' is cronyism, oligarchy, naked thievery.

[Two Americas]

83. yes

And "the absence of capitalism" means that the full range of possibilities is then available for consideration, not merely some narrow "alternative system" as the apologists for and sycophants to the rulers would have us believe.

Capitalism is modern, aberrant, unusual, destructive and unworkable. There are an infinite number of possible alternatives, and humankind did quite well in most places throughout time without capitalism. But now we are to believe that capitalism is "human nature" and the standard, the norm, an inevitable and inescapable state of affairs.

People who defend "capitalism" - what they imagine capitalism to be - are defending cronyism, oligarchy, naked thievery, as you say, as well as the destruction of the planet. They are not defending an "ideology" or "a system," though they flatter themselves that they are discussing high minded intellectual concepts. It is just laughable when people say that this imaginary "system" is good - "the system has provided the greatest benefits to humans of any system" and "for all of its flaws, which don't get me wrong I readily admit, it is a lot better than any alternative system that has been tried." That thinking is so patently and obviously at variance with easily observed reality, so illogical, so absurd, that it distorts everything in a person's mind when they cling to it. Yet to question that would require people to see their entire self-image and view of reality as invalid, and few have the courage to do that.



...

[kentuck]

6. The people are moving to the "center"...

from the far right. It only appears they are moving left. Also, it is more to our advantage to say they are moving to the center, so long as the center agrees with our policies. It is to the Repubs advantage to define it as moving to the "left". Just my opinion... :-)

[blindpig]

9. Why are you afraid of the left?

Let the Repubs howl and yammer, they just make fools of themselves. The people want shut of these imperial aggressions, want the health care provided by every other country that is able, want the abuses of Wall Street not only ended but justice served. These are left positions, the party hierarchy, ignoring or dismissing the legitimate desires of the public, is setting the stage to join the Whigs.

[kentuck]

10. Sorry you misunderstood my post...

If you can move to the left by calling it the "center", and defeat the Repub propaganda in the process, what is wrong with that thinking? Sometimes it is necessary to think a little more strategically, in my opinion. Or would you rather be called a "socialist" and not make any progress? Language is a big part of our struggle.

[blindpig]

11. I'll have to disagree.

Enough of the stealth, taking that path insures accommodation, dilution and assimilation. That is how we have a large portion of the populace having no real representation, they are left of the party on the issues I mentioned but there is only a handful of Representatives who in any way share their views. The the party actively seeks to suppress more 'lefty' candidates.

Allowing the Right to define us is a non-starter, it serves only the elite, but the party bosses are OK with that. Instead of denying the least hint of 'socialism', if the party wishes to be the party of the people it should embrace the left, run with it. But that will not happen because the party leadership is firmly in the thrall of the elite.

[kentuck]

13. I understand your point.

I think reality is another matter. If the Democratic Party were to declare themselves "socialists", do you think that would help pass our agenda? Language is important in politics.

[Two Americas]

16. of course not

People on this thread missed the significance of the poll.

No, it would not help the Democratic party to call themselves socialists. We are not talking about changing a brand name here. It would hurt the party to change there name to "haters of mankind," too. So what?

The point is that despite the relentless propaganda that has rendered the word socialism anathema to people, still many are not afraid of the word.

In addition, the poll tells us there is a growing opposition to the rule by the wealthy.

"Help pass out agenda" you say. Yet you skip over the part where we discuss exactly what that agenda is. Forget about the word. The question is - should be for all of us - would the people support an agenda based on socialist rather than free market ideas regardless of what we called that, would the country be better off, and would whoever led the way on that receive public support.

I do not see how anyone claiming to have any political position other than the right wing position would answer "no" to those questions.


...

[Two Americas]

24. "our agenda"

You said "our agenda." But you are talking about their agenda.

[fascisthunter]

81. no they aren't

get used to it

[JTFrog]

7. Is it just me

Or did anyone else have a hell of a time figuring out where to fit all the pronouns in the OP despite it's liberal sprinkling of labels?

If I consider myself an everyday person I'm just moving ahead of myself.

:shrug:

[Two Americas]

20. the people here

The people here are not everyday people. First, most talk about the everyday people as a group other than themselves, see words like "workers" as applying to some other group to which they do not belong. Also, people here routinely say "we" when referring to the ruling class. "We invaded Iraq" and "what should we do about the economy." So people here do not see themselves as the everyday people. Also, people from the upper 10% income bracket are disproportionately represented here, and the prejudices of that class permeate the discussions here.

"Liberal sprinkling of labels" - hard to construct sentences without using nouns. The fact that relentless right wing propaganda has attached entire story lines to those nouns in people's minds that have little or nothing to so with their meaning does make it difficult to communicate about politics.


...

[U4ikLefty]

60. Please explain this phrase, "people from the upper 10% income bracket are disproportionately

represented here, and the prejudices of that class permeate the discussions here."

I'd really like to know where you get this "upper 10% income" stat. Please provide a source.

[JTFrog]

69. He just makes shit up as he goes.

The OP was all over the place.

[blindpig]

71. Not making up shit

Have you never paid attention to the occasional 'how much do you make' polls that periodically pop up? The upper 10% is certainly over-represented here, not talking about millionaires so much as those in the 70K-120K range in particular. It's a world of difference between 30K and 70K, much less the higher number, the tolerances are much smaller. DU most certainly does not represent 'average America'.

[JTFrog]

72. Really? Got numbers with links?

Or just making shit up?

[blindpig]

73. Here's some 'made up shit' for ya:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x1278963

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x988563

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x1701302

You really walked into that one.

[blindpig]

74. aw, nothin' but crickets

For the math impaired that averages within a smidgen of 30%, which is to say 3x more represented than their percentage of the population.

[JTFrog]

76. Nothing like cold hard facts

to leave a bruise on my forehead.

If you can't see the problem with using a small sampling of self reported income from five years ago as the basis for your argument, then what is the point of going any further?

[blindpig]

77. So, YOU come up with some 'cold, hard facts' and refute.

Yes, it is a small sampling, it's all we got. Come up with something better or quit demanding shit.

[JTFrog]

78. You want me to disprove your claim for you?

I'm done here.

[Two Americas]

85. absurd

The assertion I made is not critical to my argument, and is offered as part of an ongoing discussion and exploration of the topic at hand.

You pick out one petty and minor point to debate, I assume because you cannot or will not confront the main points here.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the people here - or at the very least the ones who dominate the discussion - are not disproportionately from the upper 10% income bracket (roughly $80,000 a year and up now, I think.)

No problem. Let's discuss the preponderance of viewpoints expressed here that defend the interests and promote the prejudices of the upper 10% then. I would be happy to approach the subject from that direction.


...

[Two Americas]

84. care to discuss this?

It is easy to lurk and throw insulting one liners out. I am right here, and not going anywhere and would welcome a discussion about this, at any length and depth.

[Two Americas]

82. sorry, I don't believe you

I don't believe that you are innocently asking a question here. If I am wrong, and you are sincere, it should be easy to demonstrate that to me and you should have no problem understanding why I would be suspicious.

Otherwise, I don't are if you accept or reject my assertion.

Polls here about occupations and incomes over the years support what I am saying. But in my view, it is obvious that what I assert is true by merely reading DU on any given day. It is rare that there is a thread that does not have people defending the upper class, and expressing upper class points of view on every subject.


...

[KharmaTrain]

8. American Politics Is Like A Pendulum...

It moves slowly from right to left...taking years to reach one apex before swinging in the opposite direction.

Throughout the 20th century we saw that pendulum start out on the right and swing left wit Roosevelt and the original Progressive/Labor/Socialist movements. Then with WWI and throughout the 20s the pendulum swung to the right...reaching the apex again with the depression. That swing stayed mostly to left of center until the 70s when it begun swinging back to the right...a place it hit its apex with 9/11 (IMHO) and thanks to the abuses of the booosh regime and the arrogance and stupidity of the GOOP has helped push the pendulum back to the left.

President Obama's election is a significant event in where this country is headed, but it's a gradual change...forcing the pendulm to move too quickly almost always leads to a backlash, but allowing it to naturally progress has allowed for real change not only to happen but endure.

The question of which system...Capitalism or Socialism is best or whatever is always hypothetical because our political "pendulum" has never stood still long enough for the extreme forms of one or the other to establish too deeply. What we end up with is a combination of the two...Social Security and economic regulation on one side but with an open-ended system on the other that rewards the basic human instinct of hording and gathering...or the accumulation of wealth. The pendulum always moves...times always change...and I believe President Obama is looking at things in this kind of a picture...many ideas he would favor or promises he made...while gaining popularity now...the political pendulum still hasn't swung far enough to drag the political system along. If anything, he's picking his battles right now. Are they the right battles? It's too soon to tell...

[blindpig]

12. Tell ya how that works

Every time that capitalism gets in over it's head, and it invariably does, the government is required to step in to patch up the situation, usually by regulation. That's the so-called swing to the left. Capital shrugs it's shoulders and proceeds finding new ways to maximise profits by gaming the system. That's the so-called swing to the right. And every time it gets worse. It is ridiculous that the people have to endure this recurrent misery, it has no real effect on those who can easily absorb the loss of millions, for those who cannot absorb the loss of a job, not so easy. Time to break the pendulum.

[Two Americas]

17. it is not about comparative "systems"

This idea that there is some buffet table of "systems" from which we select sounds more like shopping than it does politics.

[leftstreet]

19. Ah, but politics IS shopping!

Capitalist Consumer Branding wins the day!

K&R and thank you for an excellent post.

:thumbsup:

[Two Americas]

28. college

This is taught in college. Comparative this and comparative that - read Cliff's Notes and be prepared for the test - and then people think they "know" something. Worse, they think they know everything they need to know about politics.

Too often, for too many people, the main thing they learn in college is how to make really stupid ideas sound smart.

Modern liberals suffer from a severe case of the house slave mentality, and are experts at defending the rulers while simultaneously making it sound as though they are kinda sorta on the side of the people. That requires some convoluted thinking and the construction of a massive rhetorical jungle of obfuscation and misdirection, and we then have to spend most of our time here trying to hack our way through that almost impenetrable jungle.




...

[Echo In Light]

14. Spot-on quote:

"...because we know that the current crisis was caused by the almost complete absence of a powerful left wing over the last 30 years on the country"

Or even a weak, ineffectual one. An illusory one is worse than that.

K&R

[Two Americas]

22. the latest ruse

The latest ruse is to call the right wing politics that many Democrat spout "left wing" and say "how come YOUR definition of what is left wing be given any weight? I say that 'free markets' is left wing, so nyah nyah nyah nyah."

Some sort of New Age-y nuttiness there. Words mean whatever we want them to mean, and everything is just a matter of opinion, and everyone's opinion is equally valid, and no one need defend or support their opinion.


...

[Orwellian_Ghost]

21. And that's despite

an immense propaganda apparatus that 24/7 defines the "left" as "liberals" all in a political system that has swung so wildly to the right that the centrists(read: apologists for the criminality of the status quo) are portrayed as "reasonable" or "pragmatists"...

Quite a gig huh?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. Read the readers' comments in the New York Times

It's true that hardcore Rush listeners don't read the New York Times, but the readership tends to be centrist rather than real left, despite what the right-wingers say. (Alexander Cockburn, for one, considers it to be a CIA propaganda organ. But the CIA doesn't control the readers' responses. I know, because I am a frequent responder under another pseudonym.)

If you choose to show the readers' responses in the order Readers' Recommendations, you see overwhelming support for the following issues: single-payer health care, getting out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, tight regulation of the financial industry, mass transit, and stopping foreign outsourcing.

[ProSense]

25. So if you believe Dems are tacking to the right, what about Republicans? How do you

explain this: LET IT SNOWE?....

"We have a totally dysfunctional system now," she said. While like most Republicans she would prefer to see the private sector collaborate on an effective change, a government-run health care system may be the only way to get the job done, she said.

I think the country as a whole, including elected Dems have tacked left. Obama would never have been able to push his budget through Congress if a predominantly right-leaning mentality prevailed.

There are a few Dems still trying to push the stupid triangulating DLC-type arguments, but their influence has waned. Also, Snowe is not a typical Republican Senator, as most Republican members of Congress are completely disingenuous assholes.

[Two Americas]

29. off topic

We aren't talking about partisan politics here.

"Obama would never have been able to push his budget through Congress if a predominantly right-leaning mentality prevailed" is one way to look at thibgs, especailly if we are to see partisanship - our team winning - was the most important thing, the only thing, to consider in politics.

Obama is not tacking Left. From reading hundreds of your posts arguing against the Left, I don't think you want the party to tack to the Left. Who is kidding whom here? The latest ruse by the opponents of the left is to claim that right wing politics are really left wing, and claim to be leftists while they battle ferociously against all left wing ideas.

You drag out partisan politics, and talk about the Republicans, and insist on seeing everything in that context, because it is only by these comparisons that the Democratic party can be made to seem left wing, and making those comparisons is an effective way to obstruct any move to the Left.

This is like defending incompetent fire fighters by comparing them to arsonists.


...

[maryf]

34. "This is like defending incompetent fire fighters by comparing them to arsonists."

Love that line!! great analogy :thumbsup:

[ProSense]

35. Neither am I. That is not a response to my question. And this

Obama is not tacking Left. From reading hundreds of your posts arguing against the Left, I don't think you want the party to tack to the Left.

Your post stated Dems, not Obama.

[Two Americas]

40. ok

"What about Republicans?"

That is interesting, yes. As they lose power, the Republicans are actually becoming more responsive to the public than the Democrats are - out of necessity, in order to survive and retain their seats.


...

[Lilith Velkor]

26. Yyyup.

[Two Americas]

30. sad state of affairs

Most people here don't even know what "move to the Left" means, and have no basis for perceiving or assessing whether it is happening.

The general public has overwhelmingly rejected Reaganomics and the religious right. Pew Research is a good resource for understanding this. That means "moving to the Left." That is the only thing it could mean. But people who are steeped in the political talk shows on TV, and red and blue maps, and hyper-loyalty to party and adulation of personalities, can just not see reality any more. Yet the same people will make arrogant and condescending attacks on the everyday people calling them stupid and ignorant.

Has there every been a more useless, confused and reactionary class of educated and intellectual people as those who dominate modern liberalism and the Democratic party?

Meanwhile, in defense of the administration we see people here -

Attacking organized Labor

Attacking public school teachers

Defending aggressive imperialistic war

Defending letting criminals walk

Defending Wall Street and the financial industry

Defending "free market" ideas and trickle down economics


And then people want us to believe that this is the Left, and what right do we have to say otherwise, because "they are better than Republicans?"


....

[Lilith Velkor]

32. And attacking us queer folk

Well, not me personally, since I am an equal-opportunity marriage abolitionist, but those who wish to partake in that institution.

I think the party leadership is stuck on blaming teh gayz for 2004, because it's easier than owning up to its own lily-livered cowardice. I hope they figure it out before the Republicans drink their milkshake again.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. "All politics is local." Tip O'Neill

The reason the pendulum is swinging to the "left" is that the usually complacent public is being hit in the pocketbook. They have finally come to the realization that having a government that finances itself with the equivalent of a batch of credit cards, that financing lost wars, that they are losing their jobs, isn't the fault of the "left" and is likely the fault of a corrupt system. And, that God isn't going to pay their bills.

[Two Americas]

33. not sure about that

We here that assumptions expressed often - that the stupid sheeple out there "vote their pocketbooks." We hear that mostly from the relatively upscale, or from those who strongly identify with the upscale. They, perhaps, do vote their pocketbooks and are projecting that onto the general public. The better off people are, the more obsessed with their personal wealth they are. That seems to be a self-evident statement, and not a source of controversy. The conclusion that the relatively upscale people then make is that the less fortunate are not so brought or competent or motivated, or are otherwise defective. This both reinforces the self-images of the upscale, and also explains away poverty and suffering - in essence, blames the people as the course of their own misery. Upscale liberals express this differently than upscale conservatives do, but the views of the two groups are otherwise he same.

Another ancillary argument we hear often, is the idea that the people need to suffer more, in order for "our" agenda to be advanced - "our agenda" meaning the agenda of the rulers who happen to be associated with the Democratic party.

I don't believe that the people vote their pocketbooks. I don't believe that most people are primarily interested in their own material well being. I don't think that stupidity among the general public is the problem. I don't believe that the average person necessarily does better under Democrats than Republicans. I don't see people making any connection between God and paying their bills.

I don't think the people are stupid, are to blame, need to be fixed or converted, nor that merely voting Democratic is necessarily a part of any solution.


...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Well, we agree on the Democratic Party being part of the problem.

But, I'll cling to my belief that politics is local and that people usually vote based on their individual circumstances rather than because of any particular ideology. The same may be said about politicians, who vote for/against bills/programs based on the perceived effect that it will have on the voters.

I have seen little indication that the average American, Upscale or Downscale, are particularly ideological and will vote their self-interest over any particular ideology.

The reason the Republicans are out of power isn't because of their ideology but because Bush managed to make a dog's breakfast out of the country. If he had been "successful" in his muddleheaded efforts we would now have McGoofy infesting the White House.

[Two Americas]

52. I understand now, yes

"...politics is local and that people usually vote based on their individual circumstances rather than because of any particular ideology..."

Yes.

[xchrom]

36. we're really negotiating on how much socialism.

we still employ western socialist safety net programs -- progressive taxation, etc.

and more 'socialism' won't mean there are no wealthy.

what the wealthy object to -- and manage through propaganda to get lots of americans to agree to -- is how much 'socialism' should the wealthy pay for.

[blindpig]

41. Beg to differ

Real socialism requires the absence of capitalism. Otherwise whatever regulation and social safety net is achieved will be rolled back by resurgent capital. That was the fate of 'trust-busting' and we are witnessing the same happening to the last shreds of the New Deal. When capital is defeated there will no longer be rich people because the source of their riches will have been returned to it's rightful owners, the workers.

There is no compromise or regulation with capitalism, the mandate of 'growth' disallows it.

[Two Americas]

43. we have to define capitalism

Most people cannot conceive of the absence of capitalism, because they don't know what capitalism is. Ten decades of relentless propaganda that has people convinced that capitalism is one of two "alternative systems" and that the other alternative is some sort of hellish nightmare, makes it difficult to discuss, as well.


...

[xchrom]

46. all western countries -- to one extent or another

use aspects of socialism.

that is what safety net programs are --

[Two Americas]

48. all human societies

All human societies, since the beginning of time, have been organized on socialist principles. Socialism is, and has always been from the beginning of time, standard operating procedure for human communities. Were that not true, it is doubtful that human beings would have survived.

Look at the massive expenditures required, the relentless propaganda, the murder and threats and coercion and intimidation required to beat socialism out of the people and drive them over the cliff, all for the benefit of the few. And still it doesn't "take" and so yet more and more and more murder, coercion, threats and propaganda are needed to keep the people down and stamp out any socialist thinking.

No child could ever be successfully raised and educated with the libertarian bootstrap "free market" so-called "ideology." No community could ever survive. Socialism is at the core of what it means to be human, the foundation for all community and society, in perfect alignment with our better natures.

People who argue against socialism want to accept the benefits and advantages of socialism, and then use those benefits and advantages to pursue their own selfish and anti-social whims and desires, and not be asked to ever give anything back. Fortunately, only about 12% of the population has the predatory, bullying and self-centered approach to life that the libertarian "philosophy" promotes. Unfortunately, that 12% is in power and dominates every aspect of our lives.



....

[xchrom]

50. well they 'sell' that libertarian idea --

and gain agreement from the masses.

in fact the extent to which they do that in america is peculiar to us.

they have managed to convince the population to wax and wane on voting against their own self interests for far too long.

i love 'nickle and dimes' for that reason.

[Two Americas]

90. do you know the history of that?

Libertarianism is a phony made-up "philosophy," similar to the way that Scientology is a phony made-up religion.

[Two Americas]

42. yes

That is an important statement - "we're negotiating on how much socialism."

If we are negotiating, why do so many people here insist that we lead with the position we would eventually be willing to settle for? The right wingers say zero, I say 10. Maybe that will result in us compromising on 5. But DU is packed with people who are saying "5 is best. I like 5. I think that is ideal. You people shouldn't be demanding 10. That is too radical. We should advocate for 5. That is reasonable and practical and moderate and realistic."

If the right wingers say zero and we say 5, we will wind up with 2 or something that is much closer to the right then it is to the center, let alone to the left. That is what has been happening in the party over the last 30 years.

There may always be wealthy people. That is not really relevant to anything.

Since the wealth that the few amass is ALL created by the workers (except according to right wing political thinking) all should eventually be "composted" back in, returned to "the soil" so the next "crop" of producers will have a chance to succeed. All "seeds" should get equal water and sunlight, too - that is the argument for public education and for eliminating poverty and inequality among our children.

This is not about handouts, nor about killing or robbing from the rich - those are right wing arguments. This is about building and protecting a prosperous and humane society from predatory and bullying destruction by the few.


...

[xchrom]

47. and that -- is a succinct history of how the democratic party

left behind being the party of fdr -- and became a center right party.

[Starry Messenger]

37. As always, good food for thought, TA.

"What is it that makes us Democrats?" This is a question we should always be asking ourselves. And no, the answer should not be "Because we are not Republicans". The Democratic Party should be the party of ideas and boundary stretching.

I hate seeing the thought stopping statements that have begun to characterize the conversations on DU. Examples like, "But we're the good guys!", "I guess you wanted McCain/Palin.", "Vote third party and see where that gets you.", "Your issues are not important"...I could go on. These are statements that are made by a person who has ceased to give anything any real thought, left or right.

I've seen people here (not in this thread) defend right wing institutions while putting down people who vote right wing. That's a problem.

I'm rambling and don't have any real conclusions, but I'm glad you are here putting the ideas into our collective "brain" TA.

edit: typo

[maryf]

39. I like your rambling!

Its by ramblings such as this that we help even more take a look at the left! and keep folks thinking!! Ramble on!

[Two Americas]

44. thanks Starry Messenger

Good post. There is much to discuss, and no need to figure it all out in 30 seconds or sum everything up in a couple of clever snarky one liners. Whenever we try to begin discussions about this, a horde comes swaggering into the thread, screaming and yelling and distracting and intimidating people, demanding that we figure out all out to their satisfaction in 30 seconds (as though anything we ever said would be acceptable to them) or else we will be subjected to relentless ridicule and dismissal until we shut up, or stagger off in confusion and frustration and abandon the discussion.

That so clearly defends and apologizes for our tormentors, is so obviously politically reactionary, and weakens and divides us. Yet it happens here every day, and the efforts at shutting down any discussion are more often than not successful.


...

[maryf]

38. K&Rnt

[maryf]

49. Kick as there hasn't been much on the religion out of politics aspect

of your post, should be its own thread? I think its very important. A conservative Christian friend of mine has been bemoaning the lack of morality/honesty of any politicians she knows of, perhaps the sermons are changing...

[Two Americas]

63. started two threads on that

I did start two threads on that subject, and they did not get much interest. Since then, the numerous and very popular threads bashing "them" - stereotypical caricatures of Republican voters and fundies, dripping with condescension and arrogance, suggest to me that many here need to have that exaggerated and cartoon-like enemy in order to define themselves. As the administration moves to the right and does many things that we would expect from a Republican administration, the threads attacking everyday Republican voters have increased.

The great unwashed masses are moving to the Left. Many upscale liberals refuse to accept or acknowledge that, since being a liberal for them is being a member of an exclusive club for superior and enlightened people. We can't just let anyone in, you know.

Here we have the people rejecting Reaganomics and the religious right, and a faction within the party trying to revive both - embracing and defending Reaganomics, and continuing to viciously attack the everyday people.



...

[TBF]

51. K&R x1000 n/t

[LanternWaste]

53. The pendulum swings back and forth...

I think that the political and social pendulum swings back and forth every thirty-five years or so. I'm not surprised, and I'd hazard that, all things being equal we will continue to move left throughout the next generation, getting to the point where the New Deal and The Great Society will be forgone conclusion rather than a bitterly contested fight.

[Mithreal]

56. K&R That poll on socialism was quite a surprise to me. nt

[waiting for hope]

57. I believe that people are more to the

left than they even realize. Common decency is not lost, and the left has always shown fairness and compassion with the issues that have been championed.

Thanks TA - :thumbsup:

[Lucky Luciano]

58. Well, we are back to:

It's the Economy stupid! People forget that when things seem ok.

[Jackpine Radical]

59. Interesting results overall, considering

that most people don't really understand what socialism is, having only the straw-man descriptions of the talking chowderheads to go by.

Overall, this suggests to me that people are more pissed of at the current system, which they no doubt think of as capitalism, than anybody yet realizes.

[blindpig]

65. Right you are.

And people don't really understand capitalism is either, but we are getting a brutal catch up lesson. The main difficulty in receiving this lesson is insistence that what we are experiencing is some sort of aberration or corruption of beneficent capitalism. Boom & bust is endemic to capitalism, characteristic of it, they can't act in any other way and be 'successful' capitalists.

Once significant numbers of people get that it's avalanche time.

[glitch]

61. Good thread. nt

[Yavin4]

62. When The Private Sector Creates Good Paying Jobs With Good Benefits

People prefer capitalism. Over the past 30 years, and in particular the last 10, the number of private sector jobs not related to the housing bubble has declined along with the benefits that they bestowed.

Globalization, which is nothing more than labor arbitrage dressed up as free trade, is destroying capitalism because it creates a bifurcated world economy, with low labor cost production nations selling to indebted consumer nations. This is economically unsustainable and explains the mess we're in today.

The people are going to want more from their government because the private sector is simply not giving it to them, and that's why you're seeing the movement towards socialism.

[Optical.Catalyst]

66. Sounds like a good trend, but some of us have always been on the left

There won't be any measured movement in my position, but I am glad to see others coming around.

[JerseygirlCT]

68. The second one saddens me, actually

While I understand it's a reaction to the unholy alliance of the GOP and right wing Christians, it signals a forgetfulness about the role of churches and other religious groups in many of the most important progressive issues. Civil rights. Migrant worker's rights. Hunger, homelessness. Anti-war movement.

It goes on. There most definitely is a role for religious organizations to speak out on issues of importance. But unfortunately, it works both ways - the problem may be when all we hear from are the haters and power-hungry - who seem to get the press - while those working diligently on the issues we all care so deeply about are mostly ignored.

[MedleyMisty]

70. I am decidedly not in the top 10% of income, and I only have a two year degree

But it's hard to read this article and see humans as perfect angels riding sparkly unicorns among shiny rainbows in Happy Sunshine Land.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/magazine/08elephant.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ei=5087&em&en=17a965f053ff1803&ex=1160625600

I could link an infinite amount of articles showing the destruction and pain and murder and mass death that humans have wrought.

Sometimes, hating humans and thinking that they're violent and destructive and hateful and selfish and completely without empathy is based on reality. I am completely pro-socialism myself. I grew up and still am relatively poor. I only have a two year degree. I don't identify with entitled rich assholes - they are included in the humans who are violent and destructive and hateful and selfish and completely without empathy. But that doesn't mean that I have to live in some fantasy land where humans are perfect angels who never do anything evil and are never selfish. The existence of capitalism in the first place negates that idea - how did perfect angels without a selfish or evil bone in their bodies come up with capitalism?

As I said the first time I saw a post of yours about the whole "we" thing - I think that it's a matter of taking responsibility. I don't say "we invaded Iraq" because I identify with anyone. If I identify with anyone in this world it's my cats. I don't feel particularly human and I don't identify with my species - the minds of most other humans seem completely alien to me. For instance, I cannot understand throwing grenades into herds of elephants or electrocuting or hanging an elephant for its natural reaction to being provoked. God - I am sorry, but people who will torture their cats and declaw them when the cat scratches their demon kid as opposed to teaching the kid how to respect cats are not fucking human. Nor are people who scream "Kill the elephant!" when an elephant kills humans who were provoking it.

I say it because I am somewhat responsible. My taxes help pay for it. I didn't protest it enough to stop it. Sure, it's a tiny tiny bit of responsibility as opposed to the responsibility of Congress members and Bush, but still it's there and I feel it. And I will never be able to understand or see anything human in people who supported the murder and torture of Iraqis and Afghans. Propaganda isn't an excuse - there has to be something wrong there to start with. If they were capable of empathy no amount of propaganda could make them decide that hurting and killing others on the other side of the world is a good thing or is acceptable.

But I don't know - the other day I was talking about the article I linked with my family, and my sister-in-law said I was the least traumatized person she knew. So maybe I am displaying the privileges of someone who won every birth lottery except the financial one. I will think about that more. But I don't know - I can quite easily feel empathy for underdogs who hurt their equals or humans who are more powerful than they are. But I don't think I will ever be able to feel empathy for people who delight in sadistic punishment of beings who are weaker than they are and are not able to defend themselves. There was nothing that I identify as human in that crowd of people who gathered to watch the elephant being hanged.

Anyway, I guess what I mean is that, at least for me inside my own mind, it's quite possible to be pro-socialism and anti-capitalism and also to think that the majority of humans are psychopaths who are incapable of empathy. And yes, I could see the argument that they are that way because of capitalism - although I would rather use the words unequal abusive society, because humans were pretty damn evil under feudalism too.

In fact, the elephant article I linked would be a perfect demonstration of that idea - that we're fucked up because humans treat other humans the same way humans treat elephants.

So - how do you get humans to stop being psychopaths? How do you heal the trauma of somewhere between six and seven billion humans?

[Jackpine Radical]

75. I am utterly convinced that you asked the same question twice here:

"So - how do you get humans to stop being psychopaths? How do you heal the trauma of somewhere between six and seven billion humans?"

I believe that psychopathy for the most part has its origins in the period between the 12th and 24th month of life, when certain portions of the brain (right orbitofrontal cortex, if you care about such things) are forming and, if the developing child fails to get certain tuypes of nurturing experiences, the brain develops abnormally, leaving the child forever incapable of understanding other humans as beings like itself. This is the key to a lack of empathy in later life.

[Hannah Bell]

88. I don't think it's so specific. People can do terrible things to each other in

the grip of mob hysteria, under orders from authority, out of survival needs, after repeated trauma after childhood - indeed, a warm, happy childhood may be detrimental if it conditions one to expect the outside world to be as kind, setting one up for disappointment, disillusionment, resentment & anger.

I don't think it's so simple as lack of nurturing in the 2nd year of life. E.g. feral children don't go on murderous killing sprees, though their lack of nuturance is absolute.

[Jackpine Radical]

92. People can do terrible things to each other without being psychopaths.

Under some conditions, people can be psychopaths without doing terrible things to each other.

[Two Americas]

89. the death of politics

How can we come up with political solutions when we base the discussion on killing off politics, and look for solutions in psychology, or religion, or spirituality or self-improvement, or just about anywhere else other than politics?

The most effective way that the political Left is destroyed, and the right wing given free rein, is to eliminate politics itself from the discussion.

I saw this modern trend starting back in the early 70's, as the political Left collapsed, and people started turning inward to "find the truth within themselves" and developing personal and individualized lifestyles and approaches to social problems, and self-improvement and spirituality and psychology took the place of politics in people's lives. People did not make that change in their thinking about this because they thought these approaches were better, but rather out of fear and discouragement.

If all of the social problems can be seen as being caused by some child rearing variables, then we are relieved from having to do any hard thinking about politics, relieved from being called upon to take any risks or make any sacrifices. That is what weakens us, distorts our thinking, and causes all of the confusion in our political discussions.

Before we can talk left wing politics, let alone make any progress, we need to restore political thinking itself.



...

[leftstreet]

80. It doesn't work that way

Propaganda isn't an excuse - there has to be something wrong there to start with. If they were capable of empathy no amount of propaganda could make them decide that hurting and killing others on the other side of the world is a good thing or is acceptable.

The propaganda insert point happens well before that. The population is inundated with fear tactics and convinced that evil doers of evil are out to get them.

"Terror, terror, terror"
"They hate us for our Freedoms"
"Fight them over there, or fight them here"
"The British are coming!"

Take your pick.

[Two Americas]

87. inevitable and unavoidable conflict here

You argue that the fault is with humans, or human nature, and not the system, that the way humans are is causing the social problems. I see the system as causing the problems, and causing people to act the way they are acting.

You see changing humans as the path to changing the system. I see changing the system as the path to people being able to improve themselves.

You see people, as individuals, needing to improve or be improved, I see the problems as being about community, and that the community needs to be improved to support people better - then and only then people will "be" better.

Without getting into which one of us may be right about this, I am just pointing out that there is a profound conflict between those two points of view, and that when it goes unrecognized that makes it difficult or impossible to discuss politics and reach any understanding.


...

[anaxarchos]

86. Part of this is a rejection...

...of the Republican/Free-Market yadda, yadda. In this way it is similar to the "embrace" of the term "liberal" under Bush when it had all but been wiped out under Reagan. The reaction to Bush was so visceral that people more or less spontaneously adopted the worst insult that the Bushies were throwing and made it their own. Prominent liberals in Congress were giving speeches denying that they were, or had ever been, "liberal" even as people were putting "proud liberal" bumper stickers on their cars. Of course the definition was a little muddy.

So too, today. Part of it is the adoption of an attitude that could not be more at odds with the present system... the fruits of the obvious crisis of Capitalism. It's all good though. People learn at such moments.

As a footnote, it will create some "issues" for the "progressives" who always seem to lag such things...

The people: "It's OK... You can be a 'Socialist' now, just like they've been saying. We get it now."
Obama: "No... No. I wasn't kidding. I am not a 'Socialist'."
The people; "Really? More's the pity, then."

[Two Americas]

91. the brand names, the sales and marketing campaigns

It is hard to take people's political opinions very seriously, when they seem to have little or no understanding of what politics are.

"Liberalism" is a brand name, like the brand name on a piece of clothing, and people "wear" it for the same reason - as a personal fashion statement.

No one who is anyone wears that "socialism" brand name, don't you know. If you do you do will never get invited by the better people to their soirees. Then how can you "network" and become personally successful?

People routinely say "you will never win anyone over to your ideas with that approach." In other words, they see their own politics as an exercise in consumerism - people literally say "sell me on your ideas and I might but them" - and political speech as a sales pitch, and political movements as marketing campaigns.



...

[Two Americas]

93. more supporting information

Polling by the Pew Research Center shows 84 percent support to increase the minimum wage. Gallup shows that more Americans sympathize with unions than with companies in labor disputes (52 to 34 percent). NBC News and the Wall Street Journal polls indicate that nearly twice as many people think the U.S. is more hurt than helped by the global economy (48 to 25 percent). Other polls open the door to increased labor and environmental standards as part of the solution.

For people caught on the wrong side of the economy, research by the University of Michigan National Election Studies reveals that 69 percent of Americans believe government should care for those who can’t care for themselves. Twice as many people want “government to provide many more services even if it means an increase in spending" (43 percent) as want government to provide fewer services “in order to reduce spending” (20 percent). Majorities say we need a bigger government “because the country’s problems are bigger” (59 percent) and a “strong government to handle complex problems” (67 percent).

On health care, Gallup’s latest poll reveals that 69 percent of Americans think it’s the government responsibility to make sure all Americans have health coverage. Only 28 percent disagreed. Polls by CBS/New York Times in February 2007 reveal that 76 percent of Americans would give up the Bush tax cuts to make sure all Americans have access to health care.

http://www.ourfuture.org/progressive-opinion/americas-progressive-majority

The Public Backlash Against Corporate Excess

The change in political winds is driven partly by the sense in the public that corporate profits and rising economic inequality are out of control. A few key points:

* 76% of the public believe that too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few corporations.

* Nearly two-thirds (65%) say corporate profits are too high, up from 59% in 2003; the intensity against these excess corporate profits is the highest in twenty years of polling.

* Just 38% feel that corporations strike a fair balance between profits and the public interest, again the lowest percentage in twenty years.

http://www.progressivestates.org/content/597/public-opinion-supports-bold-progressive-leadership

Health Care & Restoring the Safety Net

Despite the YOYO (You're On Your Own) ideology promoted by the right-wing, 69% of Americans now believe that government has a responsibility "to take care of people who can't take care of themselves" - an increase in support for a strong safety net from 61% as recently as 2002.

Similarly, 69% say the government should guarantee "every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep," up from 63% in 2002 and the highest it has been since 1991. This belief in a hand-up for those in need trumps even fears of deficit spending: 54% of the public believes, "The government should help more needy people even if it means going deeper in debt," compared to just 41% who endorsed that statement back in 1994.

Health Care for All: 26% of Americans say there has been a time in the last 12 months when they have been unable to afford necessary health care for themselves or a family member. Support for extending health care to all Americans trumps any tax-phobia: 66% of Americans favor "the government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes."



http://www.progressivestates.org/content/597/public-opinion-supports-bold-progressive-leadership

The Decline of the Social Issues "Wedge" Card

While Americans remain overwhelmingly a religious people, with 83% saying they never doubt the existence of God, those religious beliefs are yielding less conservative social policies in the public sphere. A few examples:

* In 1987, 51% of the public supported firing teachers who are known to be homosexual; just 28% now support that view.

* In 1987, 43% of the public believed "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behavior," but just 23% now agree with that statement.

* Where less that 29% of the public in 1987 completely disagreed with the statement that "Women should return to their traditional roles in society," 51% of the public now completely rejects that statement, and 75% of Americans now reject the idea that women should be confined to traditional roles.

Views on Corporate Power

Most people believe the nation’s corporations are too powerful and fail to strike a fair balance between profits and the public interest. In addition, nearly two-thirds (65%) say corporate profits are too high, up from 59% in 2003.

The idea that, in general, corporations make excessive profits is now more widely shared – and more strongly expressed – than a few years ago. While 65% agree that corporations make too much profit, 30% completely agree with this statement. This is the highest percentage expressing complete agreement with this statement in 20 years.

There are sizable political differences in views of business, including whether or not corporations make too much profit. Seven-in-ten Democrats express this view and 68% of independents agree, up from 60% in 2002. Yet an increasing number of Republicans also say corporations make too much profit.

A majority of Republicans (54%) now believe that corporate profits are too high, up from 46% four years ago. There are significant divisions over this issue among Republicans between those who consider themselves professionals and those who consider themselves working class. Among Republican professionals, 43% say that business corporations make too much profit, compared with 63% of Republicans who call themselves working class.

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf

Views on Labor

While labor unions struggle to maintain their central role in the American workplace, support for unions remains robust. More than two-thirds of the public (68%) say that “labor unions are necessary to protect the working person.”

Support for labor unions varies according race, level of income and education, and partisanship. Blacks are much more likely than whites to say labor unions are necessary to protect the working person ? 85% vs. 65%, respectively. Those who have not attended college are more supportive of labor unions than college graduates. The differences across income groups are even sharper. Among those with annual household incomes in excess of $75,000, 57% say labor unions are necessary. This compares with 79% of those in the lowest income categories.

The Haves versus the Have-nots

The belief that “the rich just get richer” has increased significantly among people with relatively high annual incomes. Nearly two-thirds of those with household incomes of at least $75,000 (65%) agree that the richer are getting richer; in 2003, only about half of those in this income category (51%) shared this sentiment. More people with somewhat lower annual incomes – between $50,000 and $74,999 – also see the rich-poor gap growing (10-point increase).

...

[Union Yes]

94. Unions can lead us forward to a fair America.

Please call your sens/reps and the Whitehouse and ask them to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

Progressives, we cannot let unions die.

[Two Americas]

95. thank you

That is where the rubber meets the road.