The Absent Left

[Agnapostate]

The rightist nature of U.S. politics is emphasized by the fact that unlike virtually every other Western liberal democracy, we lack any viable social democratic party (we have the marginal Green Party), only one social democrat (Bernie Sanders) in the Senate, and most certainly don't have any socialist or other radical progressive parties, or any major anarchist movement separate from the anti-globalization movement. This marks a certain detachment from times past, when Eugene Debs was able to command a sizable number of votes in the presidential election and anarchists and socialists were the main forces behind the labor reform movement, winning common benefits of the modern formal workplace. So why are the "leftists" of the U.S. actually right-leaning centrists and why is there no viable left in the U.S.? Please try and explain with something better than "grrr, teh communist killers is teh devilz!"

 

[Cold Highway]

Democrats do have a social democratic caucus as far as I know and the LP does have anarchists in although they may not be to your liking.

 

[Agnapostate]

Democrats do have a social democratic caucus as far as I know and

Are self-identified social democrats a viable political force? If they were, they'd have their own party and would be reasonably competitive also. We have one self-identified "socialist" senator, Bernie Sanders, who's usually identified as a social democrat or attacked as a "reformist" by other self-identified socialists.

the LP does have anarchists in although they may not be to your liking.

I'm friends with many of the "anarchists" in the LP, Angela Keaton probably being the most prominent. They know that I don't consider them "anarchists" or "leftists." The "anarcho"-capitalist movement has no history with the older anarchist movement and its nature as a socialist ideology and has no history with established progressive movements other than Murray Rothbard's efforts to build New Left coalitions in the 1960's without altering his propertarian philosophy.

 

[MrFungus420]

What difference does the label that you apply to lying scum?

Right, left, Republicrat or Democan...doesn't really matter.

Lying scum that will do or say whatever they think it is that will get them more power.

They tell different lies, that's about it.

 

[Kandahar]

Are self-identified social democrats a viable political force? If they were, they'd have their own party and would be reasonably competitive also. We have one self-identified "socialist" senator, Bernie Sanders, who's usually identified as a social democrat or attacked as a "reformist" by other self-identified socialists.

Bernie Sanders may be the only one who uses the label "socialist" or "social democrat"...but in terms of the policies being advocated, is he really THAT different from a Chuck Schumer or a Russ Feingold or a John Kerry? I don't think so. They all want to help alleviate poverty, and none of them are especially shy about taxing the rich to pay for it.

Are you referring to a more radical, Marxist viewpoint? The reason that hasn't taken hold in the United States is because it simply hasn't worked anywhere else it has been tried.

 

[Oftencold]

I would imagine it's because we are traditionally a "hands-on," skeptical people, largely of craftsman, laborer, even peasant stock. (We're by and large the descendants of people who fled from the enchanting new ideas and sweeping reforms of kings, emperors, fuhrers, commissars, dear leaders and juntas.

Such an outlook leads to a certain degree of suspicion of power and healthy cynicism. Become the most powerful and prosperous country in history in a scant three lifetimes has certainly reinforced the sort of society that produced those results.

So, I would think, we tend to be more suspicious of new social movements, and political experiments.

 

[Agnapostate]

Bernie Sanders may be the only one who uses the label "socialist" or "social democrat"...but in terms of the policies being advocated, is he really THAT different from a Chuck Schumer or a Russ Feingold or a John Kerry?

No, which underscores my point. There is no social democratic influence, let alone any more radical progressive influence in U.S. politics.

Are you referring to a more radical, Marxist viewpoint? The reason that hasn't taken hold in the United States is because it simply hasn't worked anywhere else it has been tried.

I referred to social democracy, and to a smaller extent, socialism and/or anti-capitalism. Social democracy is of course lauded by some as a success of Scandinavia but no major social democratic party or contingency is on the political scene...though they're too rightist for my preferences anyway. And beyond that, outright advocacy of socialism or opposition to capitalism occupies an entirely marginal role in U.S. politics, even if the socialists in question don't advocate the Leninism that you refer to.

I would imagine it's because we are traditionally a "hands-on," skeptical people, largely of craftsman, laborer, even peasant stock. (We're by and large the descendants of people who fled from the enchanting new ideas and sweeping reforms of kings, emperors, fuhrers, commissars, dear leaders and juntas.

Such an outlook leads to a certain degree of suspicion of power and healthy cynicism. Become the most powerful and prosperous country in history in a scant three lifetimes has certainly reinforced the sort of society that produced those results.

So, I would think, we tend to be more suspicious of new social movements, and political experiments.

There would be cause to be suspicious of more rightist programs and agendas on that basis, because of the traditional incorporation of social authoritarianism as a component of sustaining traditional cultural mores. The more progressive and leftist ideologies that I refer to typically incorporate civil libertarianism.

 

[Oftencold]

There would be cause to be suspicious of more rightist programs and agendas on that basis, because of the traditional incorporation of social authoritarianism as a component of sustaining traditional cultural mores. The more progressive and leftist ideologies that I refer to typically incorporate civil libertarianism.

Ah! But you see, traditional cultural mores require little authoritarianism to maintain -- that's what it is to be "traditional."

 

[Mach]

This marks a certain detachment from times past

Entrenched power. It's natural, historically routine, and reasonable for those involved in the power structure (get more, keep it). You won't have more than two parties, and you can't get them to do what you want, primarily because of both the old power there, and the fact that it's just two parties. They are a compromise of compromises, BEFORE the bi-partisan compromise even begins.

Typically revolution or massive war are the only ways you see that change.

What fundamental new thing would spark a political revolution? The internet and interconnectivity in general? Maybe. Short of that, it's more likely going to swell and collapse from within, sparking a more traditional revolution....

 

[Mach]

So, I would think, we tend to be more suspicious of new social movements, and political experiments.

Why would that not mean instead you'd be suspsicious of those with significant power or power over you?

Social movements have been typically by the people, often for the people. Poltiical experiemnts are typically only a threat to entrenched power structures.

I don't follow why you'd think that.

What in the world does a peasan laborer have to fear for change? Becoming a peasan laborer? What does a prince based on a "royal bloodline" have to fear from political change? I would wager...everything, and he has a lot to lose no?

 

[Oftencold]

Why would that not mean instead you'd be suspsicious of those with significant power or power over you?

Social movements have been typically by the people, often for the people. Poltiical experiemnts are typically only a threat to entrenched power structures.

I don't follow why you'd think that.

What in the world does a peasan laborer have to fear for change? Becoming a peasan laborer? What does a prince based on a "royal bloodline" have to fear from political change? I would wager...everything, and he has a lot to lose no?

Did I not illustrate that we distrust power too?

As for major social movements, many are orchestrated by factions seeking power, or soon hijacked by them. (French Revolution, Russian Revolution, U.S. Civil Rights Movement, Chinese Revolution, South African movement against apartheid, Western Sexual Revolution, Iranian Revolution, Rhodesian Revolution, Cuban Revolution, and so on.)

I stand by my position, obviously.

 

[Agnapostate]

Ah! But you see, traditional cultural mores require little authoritarianism to maintain -- that's what it is to be "traditional."

Unless they're reliant on social authoritarianism in the first place, as religion-inspired rightism usually is.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Did I not illustrate that we distrust power too?

As for major social movements, many are orchestrated by factions seeking power, or soon hijacked by them. (French Revolution, Russian Revolution, U.S. Civil Rights Movement, Chinese Revolution, South African movement against apartheid, Western Sexual Revolution, Iranian Revolution, Rhodesian Revolution, Cuban Revolution, and so on.)

I stand by my position, obviously.

I'm going way out on a limb here and suggest that if we honestly analyzed each issue in the Democrat platform, most Democrats in the USA would say that the Democrat Party does not reflect many, perhaps most, of their views. Poll after poll is showing that a very large percentage of Republicans think their congressional leadership is out of touch with their values and what they believe is most important.

But the organizations--the machines that control the money and power and therefore the agenda--are centered in the Democrat and Republican parties. So long as that is the case, the two major parties can effectively monopolize elections so that another party doesn't have much chance to raise up viable candidates.

Given his charisma and salesmanship abilities, Ross Perot almost amended the system and I think if he hadn't chickened out and gone wacko on us, he would have.

I think if another charismatic leader with ability to sell a concept like Perot came onto the scene, and the media gave him or her as much opportunity to give his/her message out as they gave Perot, it could happen. I don't think a party Agnapostate would endorse would have much of a chance as I think most Americans will thoroughly reject his view of what governmet should be. But somebody appealing to the Tea Partiers and Tax Protest groups could.

But would the mainstream media of today give an outside candidate a fair shake or would they continue to aid and abet the Democrats and the current Administration in destroying such a person?

 

[Kandahar]

I'm going way out on a limb here and suggest that if we honestly analyzed each issue in the Democrat platform, most Democrats in the USA would say that the Democrat Party does not reflect many, perhaps most, of their views. Poll after poll is showing that a very large percentage of Republicans think their congressional leadership is out of touch with their values and what they believe is most important.

But the organizations--the machines that control the money and power and therefore the agenda--are centered in the Democrat and Republican parties. So long as that is the case, the two major parties can effectively monopolize elections so that another party doesn't have much chance to raise up viable candidates.

If that were true, then the fact that some groups control the money wouldn't matter. Votes are what counts, not money.

I don't think a party Agnapostate would endorse would have much of a chance as I think most Americans will thoroughly reject his view of what governmet should be. But somebody appealing to the Tea Partiers and Tax Protest groups could.

And you think there are enough of THEM to form a viable third party? You're talking about a very small subsection of Republicans and independents.

But would the mainstream media of today give an outside candidate a fair shake or would they continue to aid and abet the Democrats and the current Administration in destroying such a person?

I think the reason the Democratic Party has the platform it does, is because it thinks that such a platform is capable of winning plurality support. The same goes for the Republican Party. And for the most part, one of them is always right.

I highly doubt that any party that is far removed from the political mainstream - whether the Tea Partiers that you referred to, or the social democrats that Agnapostate referred to - could get a plurality support...except maybe in very conservative or very liberal districts.

 

[Agnapostate]

I don't think a party Agnapostate would endorse would have much of a chance as I think most Americans will thoroughly reject his view of what governmet should be.

Government should be nothing and political parties should be nothing, so I shouldn't have to endorse or support any electoral candidates. But plenty of people share at least impulses for my socialism, as economic democracy makes straightforward sense. Why tolerate an elite caste of people controlling resources in the economic realm if it would be denounced as dictatorship in the political realm, as the two are not actually so separate as commonly depicted? There should be broader support for this...I suspect the reason there isn't is because of the disingenuous association of "socialism" with the USSR and Leninism and the consequent antipathy that so many have toward ideologies with that label as a result.

But somebody appealing to the Tea Partiers and Tax Protest groups could.

The reason that what passes for economic leftism in this country is associated with "populism" is because not many people have an interest in privatizing Social Security or cutting back on Medicare or Medicaid and opposing UHC simply because of emotional impulse even without the more nuanced economic argument that I tend to refer to. There were plenty of people who opposed the "welfare reform" of the 1990's and don't fall prey to the tired rightist stereotype of most aid recipients being characterized by a permanent class of welfare "leeches."

 

[Orion]

Agnapostate, how do you then explain the discrepancy between the versions of "liberal" in places like Canada and Australia vs. Europe? Canada's "left" is not as liberal as the "left" in Europe, but is farther "left" than the "left" of the United States. (That's a lot of quotes!)

I think the U.S. has a bigger conservative base as a culture, so its version of "left" is still pretty conservative compared to other places. I'm not sure that there is any active effort to make it that way, except for in the news conglomeration.

 

[bowerbird]

The rightist nature of U.S. politics is emphasized by the fact that unlike virtually every other Western liberal democracy, we lack any viable social democratic party (we have the marginal Green Party), only one social democrat (Bernie Sanders) in the Senate, and most certainly don't have any socialist or other radical progressive parties, or any major anarchist movement separate from the anti-globalization movement. This marks a certain detachment from times past, when Eugene Debs was able to command a sizable number of votes in the presidential election and anarchists and socialists were the main forces behind the labor reform movement, winning common benefits of the modern formal workplace. So why are the "leftists" of the U.S. actually right-leaning centrists and why is there no viable left in the U.S.? Please try and explain with something better than "grrr, teh communist killers is teh devilz!"

I think it is sad and a reflection on the "piranha neo-cons" who seem to have a huge voice in America - Every time there is a movement i.e. green it is derided and diminished until few will align themselves with it.

It is not a nice part of the American culture

 

[bowerbird]

Agnapostate, how do you then explain the discrepancy between the versions of "liberal" in places like Canada and Australia vs. Europe? Canada's "left" is not as liberal as the "left" in Europe, but is farther "left" than the "left" of the United States. (That's a lot of quotes!)

I think the U.S. has a bigger conservative base as a culture, so its version of "left" is still pretty conservative compared to other places. I'm not sure that there is any active effort to make it that way, except for in the news conglomeration.

I think it has to do with basic social mores and values.

Capitalism is far more valued in the USA than elsewhere

"Capitallism" here has many of the same emotional flavour as "communism" does for Americans

It would be interesting to have an international thread with definitions of political words posted by people from that country

I.e Australian

Capitalist - worker exploiter:2razz:

Greenie - up a tree somewhere but still making sure there is something left for the next generation

Communist - misguided and interesting specimen - not a threat

Socialist - so, what is wrong with that?

:rofl:lol:

 

[Agnapostate]

Agnapostate, how do you then explain the discrepancy between the versions of "liberal" in places like Canada and Australia vs. Europe? Canada's "left" is not as liberal as the "left" in Europe, but is farther "left" than the "left" of the United States. (That's a lot of quotes!)

I think the U.S. has a bigger conservative base as a culture, so its version of "left" is still pretty conservative compared to other places. I'm not sure that there is any active effort to make it that way, except for in the news conglomeration.

That's probably the case. I'm sure there's some association with the increased numbers of religious adherents and consequent greater influence of organized religion and the social rightism that those religious persons' involves with politics usually bring to the table. But there was far more significant support for socialism at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century than there is now despite the more socially rightist climate, so there's some detachment there also. I suspect that the popular misconception that the USSR and similar states were "socialist" or "communist" and the perpetuation of that misconception by the mass media is to blame for the decline of that popularity, as the extension of democracy into the economic realm is simply straightforward common sense.

 

[Gardener]

Agnapostate, how do you then explain the discrepancy between the versions of "liberal" in places like Canada and Australia vs. Europe? Canada's "left" is not as liberal as the "left" in Europe, but is farther "left" than the "left" of the United States. (That's a lot of quotes!)

I think the U.S. has a bigger conservative base as a culture, so its version of "left" is still pretty conservative compared to other places. I'm not sure that there is any active effort to make it that way, except for in the news conglomeration.

You are admixing two concepts -- left and liberal. The European left is not more liberal than the U.S., but merely more leftist. You are confusing political principles with degree of extremism and dogmatism here, as the European left is more extreme, more dogmatic and more conformist, certainly, but the guiding principles it follows are those of multiculturalism rather than liberalism.
A liberal political philosophy advocates social justice for individuals, whereas multiculturalism advocates for groups, instead, even if the principles within such a group are archly regressive. It is the political doctrine of multiculturalism that has resulted in the European left abandoning liberalism, since it it no longer asks the question "what is social justice for the individual", but has turned into little more than an echo chamber of political correctness.