country is socially moving to the left, the presidential house (called the White House, fyi) has been going to the left party which has been going to the right economically and to the left socially, and the stupid parts of the right along with the mean spirited mean parts of the right have become more empowered and much louder and better organized.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:our politics has gone further rightward over the past 30 years to the point that people who were solidly in the Republican party are now moderate Democrats. that has nothing to do with rhetoric.

This is interesting to me, because some of the biggest political policy wins in recent history have been won by liberals. Conservatives have won some of the policy wars over income taxes, but liberals have successfully moved the ball forward on healthcare and gay marriage.

The people that may have opposed gay marriage 20 years ago, and now would consider themselves Democrats, are not necessarily evidence of the country shifting right. Unless you mean that the conservative values of liberty and individual rights (ie. they're not hurting you by getting married) are being applied more often to "win" the liberal side of the argument on social issues. Is that how you're interpreting the rightward shift?

i don't necessarily view societal shifts as being politically conservative or liberal unless we're saying that only liberals are for equality. Certainly #blacklivesmatter for example is not a liberal only issue, though it is comprised of probably mostly liberal people. i don't think that is a 'liberal' position to hold, though. political means are used to further that agenda, certainly.

the war industry, wall street culture, money in politics, tax code, all sorts of stuff has lurched right, many of it also embraced by the Democratic party as well as Republicans. The way we had to pass healthcare reform was enacting the formerly Republican plan.

Well, that makes sense. If all of the liberal wins are nonpartisan and common sense, then the country is moving to the right.

Youseff wrote:country is socially moving to the left, the presidential house (called the White House, fyi) has been going to the left party which has been going to the right economically and to the left socially, and the stupid parts of the right along with the mean spirited mean parts of the right have become more empowered and much louder and better organized.

I don't know about whether the stupid parts of the party are more empowered. They're losing many of the battles, and Twitter may make them seem louder.

TomatoPie wrote:I see a steady move to the left.

You can only 'see' this if you do not see anything with regard to labor - a worker voice in how work and workplace related issues are addressed and resolved - as being relevant to politics.

We in the US lag far behind Europe - maybe more broadly, western economies - in legislating workplace policy. That used to be because labor unions preferred to drive those issues. Now, with all but public sector unions on life support, basically nobody gives enough of a positive fuck, and republican gerrymanderers only care about keeping you off their lawns.

Sure some cheer Lilly Ledbetter etc. That is, as they say in some parts, small beer. Put all your other socially liberal legislation on the scale and the absence of workplace liberalism means we've been lucky to tread political spectrum water.

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:I see a steady move to the left.

You can only 'see' this if you do not see anything with regard to labor - a worker voice in how work and workplace related issues are addressed and resolved - as being relevant to politics.

We in the US lag far behind Europe - maybe more broadly, western economies - in legislating workplace policy. That used to be because labor unions preferred to drive those issues. Now, with all but public sector unions on life support, basically nobody gives enough of a positive #$!&@, and republican gerrymanderers only care about keeping you off their lawns.

Sure some cheer Lilly Ledbetter etc. That is, as they say in some parts, small beer. Put all your other socially liberal legislation on the scale and the absence of workplace liberalism means we've been lucky to tread political spectrum water.

My dad was AFL-CIO. His union drove his company out of business. He was lucky enough to retire, the young guys all just lost their jobs. You can't protect jobs that don't make economic sense. Not here, not in Europe. You can't enrich Americans by denying economic prosperity to Asia.

I never wanted nor needed a union to protect my job. No competent person should, for the most part. We may "lag Europe" but that just means they are further along on a path that cannot be sustained.

TomatoPie wrote:On fiscal issues, we're going the wrong way. We continue to shift Americans from working class to dependent class.

Sorry, but n-worda please. Bring data. We won't wait up for you.

TomatoPie wrote:My dad was AFL-CIO. His union drove his company out of business. He was lucky enough to retire, the young guys all just lost their jobs. You can't protect jobs that don't make economic sense.

What makes sense depends on who owns - or controls - what.


The issue is no longer jobs - there are soooooo many "jobs" that are not sustainable or defensible. Yours included.

We need a path to how 'stuff' is allocated that does not rely on economic modes that are a perfect fit for the material realities of the 1940s

Both US political parties are the parties of the owners.

One is 'about' including diminishing populations of the marginalized. Bravo for that; but is inclusiveness all you need as a nation's organizing principle?

After a period as the Party of No, the other has become the Party of Nothing - if the current polling regarding 'the Party's' candidates indicates anything. The candidates with something resembling ideas trail, hard and long, the candidate with - nothing, is the most apt summary term for what he's got.

In the absence of something like equilibrium, confusion and dissolution is good for ownership - for a time. Then someone burns down someone's house

I think that's what it's about, equilibrium. Money and the power that comes with it, especially in the post Citizens United/companies-are-people world, is consolidated into the hands of fewer and fewer people. It isn't democrats pushing that movement, but there are certainly some democrats who participate in making it happen.

I feel like the unions can't have too much power and companies can't have too much power. There needs to be some balance. Sadly, I think this current imbalance is permanent unless there's some sea change in how we finance elections. And I don't see how we can have a sea change now that the money is entrenched. Hell, even crashing the economy in 2008 didn't get anyone in trouble (well, except common folk).

There's no doubt that social conservatives have lost every battle they've fought, with the exception of abortion, where they can claim some small victories. Now, often, this is because they're mostly pretty nasty and mean spirited. But even when they're reasonable, like when they want to buy cable channels a la cart instead of one big package, they get nothing, but the rest of us get our four letter words on FX with basic cable!

On economic issues, I think it's fair to say we're really in a world of crony capitalism, with Dems and Reps choosing to enrich different cronies (but Wall Street gets paid no matter what). Our labor movement has made a series of strategic errors--abandoning the South for one. But there is no doubt in my mind that for almost all of us, our employers have a lot more leverage over the conditions of our employment than we do.

While I am more optimistic than most about future economic prospects, I do understand that there is a very real possibility that technology and automation pose a very real threat regarding the employment prospects of our children. For almost everyone, the security enjoyed by our parents is a thing of the past.

Monkeyboy wrote:I think that's what it's about, equilibrium. Money and the power that comes with it, especially in the post Citizens United/companies-are-people world, is consolidated into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

It cracks me up when I see right wingers on redstate and elsewhere celebrating Citizens United and at the same time complaining about crony capitalism.

TenuredVulture wrote:There's no doubt that social conservatives have lost every battle they've fought, with the exception of abortion, where they can claim some small victories.

underprivileged women in states where PP and other health services have been shut down under the guise of ending abortion might disagree about the smallness of the victories.

Wow, I'd be floored if Gore ran.

Socially conservative issues don't really win, 99% of the time the social conservative stance is already law. Usually once they're defeated, they quickly become widely unpopular. Nothing changing is "winning" most of the time.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Wow, I'd be floored if Gore ran.

He's more plausible than Biden. 1) He's got a hook issue that gives his campaign a rationale with the liberal base; 2) He's really rich; 3) His friends are even more really rich.

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Wow, I'd be floored if Gore ran.

He's more plausible than Biden. 1) He's got a hook issue that gives his campaign a rationale with the liberal base; 2) He's really rich; 3) His friends are even more really rich.

mostly agree with your plausiblity assertion, but ... not feelin it

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure I see the logic in sitting out 2004 and 2008 to run in 2016.

the clock only moves on direction, nightman.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I don't disagree, but I'm not sure I see the logic in sitting out 2004 and 2008 to run in 2016.

Boredom
Wanting to make sure global warming is a front and center issue in the primary
Thinking that if Hillary implodes he could save the party from electoral ruin
Boredom