Support NeoGAF

[Bodacious]

"Liberals" have become what they've loathed.

All citizens agree that we want a good country, and a good quality of life. The party system inherently prevents us from agreeing on things, simple as that. All the while, the parties are best friends. Their lobbied interests are identical.

I don't consider myself liberal anymore, its like how I stopped considering myself atheist, when the "god killed my dog" type ran rampant. Look at the dumbass liberals over the vaccination thing. Or gentrification and ruining local economies.

our party system shouldn't be the 2 most lobbied, wealthy candidates. We can all agree on that.

Now lets get these assholes out of our government. The system is poisoned. We just need a citizen party.

1. Healthcare
2. Infrastructure
3. Jobs
4. Healthcare
5. Try to mend middle east affairs as best we can to return that $ from the military to our country.
6. We have to allow citizens to marry in the United states. Its a human right.
7. Everyone gets to keep their guns
8. Climate change. We have to prepare for it, whatever caused it. We have to make a better world for our children.
9. Return civil rights and liberties back. No more fucking spying on all of us for the wars you create(gov)
10. Cap money given to politicans or donated. Maybe some sort of public service so that people become the politicians, like jury duty.

I mean, I think thats a good start.

Or, we can keep the bullshit going of "herp derp conservatives, lol", "Hilary is the devil!!!" blah blah blah. Fast forward the clock, and we will be in the same position as citizens we've been in. Reduced rights, rampant corruption, money that none of us get to see, yet we always foot the bill for the governments bullshit, etc. We've seen this exact shit play out over and over. There is nothing different about this next election, than the past 32 years of my life. Its a circus, a god damned wrestling match.

Vince wins no matter what. Savvy?

Great post. I guess you know it ain't gonna happen though. We're on a one-way train and there's no comin' back now.

I'm dead serious. It's got electrolytes.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Yeah, actually, that's totally false.

Actual data shows your actual political leaning is largely based on how you vote in your first couple of elections. Most people who were liberal when they were young, are still liberal.

Yes, it's 'bigger' news when suddenly somebody goes from a Republican to a Democrat, or vice versa, but the truth is a lot simpler. Because otherwise, there wouldn't be any old people at Democratic rallies or any young people at Republican rallies.

What actually happens is different generations vote on what they experience in their young adulthood - thus people who grew up during the Reagan years are a little more Republican than people who grew up during the Clinton years, and so on, and so forth.

 

[RM8]

you are basically born a liberal and grow into conservatism.

I mean, I'm not American and I've never even been to America, but are you telling me people grow to oppose gay marriage, abortion, deny climate change, and similar things?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Now lets get these assholes out of our government. The system is poisoned. We just need a citizen party.

1. Healthcare
2. Infrastructure
3. Jobs
4. Healthcare
5. Try to mend middle east affairs as best we can to return that $ from the military to our country.
6. We have to allow citizens to marry in the United states. Its a human right.
7. Everyone gets to keep their guns
8. Climate change. We have to prepare for it, whatever caused it. We have to make a better world for our children.
9. Return civil rights and liberties back. No more fucking spying on all of us for the wars you create(gov)
10. Cap money given to politicans or donated. Maybe some sort of public service so that people become the politicians, like jury duty.

I mean, I think thats a good start.

There's a really neat movement in U.S. politics that might interest you

 

[Who]

Is your position that both parties are bad enough we should look outside for answers, or is your position that both parties are exactly equally as bad, because the latter seems sort of indefensible regardless of what your value structure is.

I dont mean to ignore you and others but my brain is too tired to come up with a cohesive response. I read that like 5 times and am not sure how to answer it. Ill revisit this thread tomorrow with fresh mind and respond lol

 

[Stinkles]

There are a number of things thats aggravate me about the modern-day, mainstream liberal (forsaking honest discourse for political correctness is a big one) but what I wish to focus the attention of this post to what I believe is the most destructive part about their beliefs and efforts.

The world around us...is well...its fucked: We have a completely backwards and unsustainable economy dependant on finite resources; we are governed under an oligarchical power structure that is not at all representative of the wills of the people; we are seeing a startling rise in the militarization of police and police brutality; we see the rich and the powerful get more rich and powerful; we have a government that frivolously borrows, spends, and wastes billions of dollars while many of its citizens suffer through expensive healthcare costs, a failing educational system, and poverty; We have a government who has granted themselves the right to invade our individual right to privacy; A government with the ability to wiretap any citizen at any time, at any part of the country; A government with the capacity to store said information in a data center capable of storing approx 12 entire internets; We see corruption, dishonesty and greed being rewarded. Everything is just … fucked.

Now many of you may be scratching your heads now as you may, on-paper, wholeheartedly agree that these are issues that need addressing. What is the problem then? The problem, from my view, is that the modern-day, mainstream liberal is doing absolutely nothing to help solve these injustices. If anything they are only contributing to the mess.

Historically in the story of human progress, being a liberal isn’t an easy thing to do. It requires addressing difficult questions and stating unpopular opinions under the risk of being scrutinized by peers or un-fairly labeled by the masses. It requires one to always be willing to fight the un-popular fight and to stand for un-popular causes. It requires constantly challenging the public's lackadaisical and apathetic attitudes that allow these gross injustices to prosper. Liberalism, in it’s purest form, demands of an individual the utmost courage, humility, and perseverance that a human is capable of.

Sadly, these are not attributes I can ascribe to the modern-day, mainstream liberal. The extent of which I see any semblance of liberals challenging the destructive behaviors and ideals that plague our world being practiced is limited only to battling the core beliefs of those on the extreme-right. Ideological battles over issues such as global-warming, gay rights, universal health-care are very important to have, don't get me wrong, but they are often missing the point of problems that plague our society. In the grand scheme of things, these are rather easy battles to win and one doesn't risk much by siding left on these issues.

So what battles do I expect liberals to fight? Well, to be frank, what I see is a system in place that all but supports the growth of these problems and radically impedes the prospect of real progress in our society. That's right, the system, that's the battle we need to fight.

Cue the eye rolls.

I probably won't be telling you anything that you didn't already know by saying this, but it remains true: The influence that corporations and banks have over our leaders and policy decisions is the primary cause of many of the serious issues we face today. It is the cancerous growth in our world that promotes short-term, profit-based thinking over logical solutions and sustainable growth. It has created a power structure in which the wills of the masses are ignored in favor of further filling the pockets of the rich and the powerful. It is a cancer in our society that is rapidly depleting the world of its resources and furthering the divide of the rich and the poor.

It's the entire system that's the problem. No it's not just the Republicans, and no it's not just corporations. It's the system.

A system that I sadly find so many liberals happily supporting. If you are somehow deluded into simply believing that Democrats are the good guys and the answer is simply to elect more people with a (D) next to their name, I challenge you to take a step back and find a more rational, unbiased view of the way things work. Your favorite politician may very well say the things you'd like them to say (Hilary Clinton promised to topple the 1% yay!) and they may be seemingly fighting the battles you want them to fight, but they are all still being funded by the same groups and corporations that are the undeniable root to many of the problems we face.

You may see democrat-led legislation, such the Affordable Care Act, as an unprecedented achievement in the progress of our country. After all, more Americans are covered with health insurance now so how can that possibly be a bad thing? But anyone who does any real research on the ACA can also see how much of a giant love letter it is to the pharmaceutical companies that lobbied for it. It may appear to you as a noble step-forward, but on the flip side it also did nothing but contribute to the growth of influence that these corporations have on our world.

It frustrates me to see so many smart, intelligent people still playing along with a system that is so obviously stacked against them. We all see the same things. We all saw a Democrat-controlled Supreme Court rule that Corporations have the same rights as people. We see the same political players caught in lies and scandals, time and time again, and see the same supporters willing and able to shrug it off and to say "Ah well that's to be expected! I hope that doesn't come back to bite them in the ass!". We see billions of dollars used in campaigns every year and know very well where that money came from and know very well the terms that came with it. We see the system as a whole and we realize how corrupt, inefficient, and cruel it really is. We see it, but we do nothing but pick a side and hope for the best.

"So what the hell do you expect me to do?", you might be thinking, "Become a third party supporter? Become an Anarchist?"

Well that's where true liberalism must come into play. It's an extremely easy feat to focus on one aspect of the system and lay that to blame for causing all the world's troubles. All you have to do is a pick a side and all the reasoning and logic has already been worked out for you: readily available, laid out nice and neat. You can take comfort in knowing what the right side of the argument is, who the enemy is, and what needs to be done (elect more X party! Less Y party!) You can turn on your TV anytime of the day and see attractive, successful, well-spoken people from your side agreeing with everything you have agreed to believe. You can google evidence for global warming and gain a sense of intellectual superiority after discovering you're on the side that is smarter than Sarah Palin. You can remain safe and cozily as a member of a club shared by millions of other bright and intelligent people. You can do this and you can do this quite easily. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you are doing anything of great value or impact. From my view, simply supporting the latest candidate put forth by the establishment (*cough* Hilary Clinton *cough*) really only is allowing all of your outrage, all of your hopes for a better world etc., to be siphoned into a nicely organized social mechanism where your voice and genuine concerns are coddled by empty campaign promises spout forth by dishonest politicians.

Attacking the system as a whole is a much more complicated and difficult feat. It's loaded with much more difficult questions and would force us to come face to face with the more grim realities of our world. It comes with the fear of being associated with the loons of the world (conspiracy theorists, the Alex Jones listeners, the Ron Paul supporters etc.). It's an undeniably difficult battle but it's the battle we should be having.

I'm not suggesting a revolution. We still have the sacred power to vote. But the truth is, if a candidate ever arises that would truly challenge the system and the status quo of our fucked up world, he or she would not be granted the same establishment support and positioning enjoyed by the Mitt Romneys and Hilary Clintons of the world. Such a candidate would, for hopefully obvious reasons, have an extremely hard time creating traction and raising the money needed to successfully campaign against more established candidates. It's up to us to change that and with the rise of freely available information and social networking, the time to do so has never been more opportune.

I don't claim to know what the exact answer is and who the right men and women are.. but my hope is that if we can all at least admit that the candidates chosen for us by the establishment, and supported by the mainstream media, will do nothing to help fix these problems, then perhaps the public mindset will shift and make way for candidates willing and capable of effecting real change to succeed.

If you can agree that corporate influences are cancerous to humanity's progress, then you should view any candidate that accepts these funds as unreliable vehicles to effect the change you want to see.

If things are going to change, it will take work on our part. It will take courage, persistence, and real effort. It will require us to spark uncomfortable conversations at the dinner table and the office break room. It will require in us humility to not just side with one-of-the-two sides in political discussions, but to take the stance against the system as a whole, all the while bearing the raised eyebrows and dismissive scoffs that will inevitably arise from our peers and colleagues. Doing so may at first seem like a helpless venture, but if we are going to change public perception on how the system actually functions, i see it starting
with these conversations.

The mainstream approach to tackling these serious issues is increasingly put forth in a plainly black and white manner. We need to accept that solutions to these issues will not be found in black or white, clean-cut answers, but rather in the scarily murky gray where concrete facts are few and intellectual and moral dilemmas loom unsolved. We need to sympathize with those on the opposing intellectual spectrum and not just reduce their reasonings to being ignorant and idiotic, but perhaps start by understanding their core beliefs and why some may not fully trust the government with the powers many wish to grant them.

Yes Republicans and extreme conservatives have their own delusions and misinformed opinions that need addressing but this thread is targeted to those on the left. Winning important intellectual battles will not be done by lowering ourselves to the lowest common denominator of the opposing side. It won’t be accomplished by allowing ourselves to be dragged down into the pointless mud-slinging that currently defines the landscape in which political discourse is had. It won’t be solved with ineffective debates which boil down to incessantly attacking a piece shit while valiantly defending a shit that appears slightly shinier.

As liberals, as people who want injustices to be solved and progress to occur, let's take it upon ourselves to be the bigger man.

This is my view and I fully expect dismissive responses and nasty vitriol to be abundant in this thread, but to those willing to debate me in a collegiate manner, I hope we can have some good conversations.

I know i’m not the best writer in the world and can admit I have a difficult time organizing my thoughts in a cohesive manner. But hopefully I was able to get my point across, and hopefully, if you find my views misguided, you can find in my writings the reasonings and lines of thinking that led me to adopt these views, and thus be able to challenge them specifically. I like to consider myself humble enough to admit I know very little about the world, but based off what I gathered so far in my young life, these are the views I have.

TLDR: Regardless of what your views are of the world, we have no help of seeing any real progress as long as our politicians are bought out by corporate influences. Let’s focus on fixing the corrupt environment in which policies are formed and public opinions are molded first, so that we can then move on to effectively solving the vast abundance of issues that impede our society.

It's "collegial" not "collegiate" and if you wanted less dismissive responses you could have made precisely the same argument in three paragraphs. You're not wrong, but the only people you will reach are self-described pragmatists and hypocrites and you're also acting, incorrectly as if these negative forces are natural and that change needs to come from the victims rather than be forced on the victors.

 

[J'aime Fils-Aime]

I mean, I'm not American and I've never even been to America, but are you telling me people grow to oppose gay marriage, abortion, deny climate change, and similar things?

I see it more as even liberals get stuck in their ways, which were once progressive but become just the way things are as time goes on. I don't necessarily agree though, but I don't know enough about people either way

 

[NinjaMouse]

I mean, I'm not American and I've never even been to America, but are you telling me people grow to oppose gay marriage, abortion, deny climate change, and similar things?

Ugh...I knew I'd catch heat for that one. I don't oppose gay marriage or abortion, I simply don't understand why things have to become issues at the federal level. I dunno. I suppose a lot of my conservatism comes in the form of fiscal conservatism, so I guess I completely doomed myself for the entirety of the thread...awesome.

 

[YoungHav]

you are basically born a liberal and grow into conservatism..

this is one of the silliest recurrent sayings on GAF.

 

[NinjaMouse]

this is one of the silliest recurrent sayings on GAF.

I'm happy to know I'm not alone, then. I'll take that.

 

[Guileless]

All's I know is that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War and gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor in favor of DOMA. So have fun with that, you guys.

 

[B-Dubs]

All's I know is that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War and gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor in favor of DOMA. So have fun with that, you guys.

Because people don't change, we're all the exact same people we were 10 years ago.

 

[Malfunky]

As I've aged, I'm seeing things a lot differently, especially now that I'm earning a paycheck, seeing where the money goes and seeing a lot of the other problems in the world. I've also gathered enough of my own problems that I've got to solve..

I'm not seeing any arguments for conservatism in this post. Would you want a system in which you didn't have to worry about your own finances and issues in the way that you currently do? Or do you think it's completely justified that the world is the way it is and that nothing that causes it to be this way should be challenged?

Just because equality isn't foreseeable or even feasible doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for it. Slavery was an indelible part of the world at some point. Legal segregation based on race was a reality in this country. Just years before they were legally abolished, people couldn't imagine a world without them. And yet here we are. What you're expressing is political apathy, not conservatism.

 

[YoungHav]

Because people don't change, we're all the exact same people we were 10 years ago.

Sorry, Hillary was roughly 56 and for the Iraq War and probably around 45 for DOMA. No excuse. She's a disengenuous chameleon like her husband.

 

[King Tubby]

Sorry, Hillary was roughly 56 and for the Iraq War and probably around 45 for DOMA. No excuse. She's a disengenuous chameleon like her husband.

In other words, she's a politician.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Sorry, Hillary was roughly 56 and for the Iraq War and probably around 45 for DOMA. No excuse. She's a disengenuous chameleon like her husband.

Great. And she's already promised to go after mass incarceration and go ever farther than Obama on immigration. She wasn't that liberal eight years ago.

The thing is, I don't care if my leaders are honest or not. I care if they do what they say. And if you want a liberal Hillary, you need to elect a liberal Congress. Oh, and vote in the midterms instead of whining the Democrat you didn't vote for didn't fix everything in 23 months.

 

[Kinsei]

Ugh...I knew I'd catch heat for that one. I don't oppose gay marriage or abortion, I simply don't understand why things have to become issues at the federal level. I dunno. I suppose a lot of my conservatism comes in the form of fiscal conservatism, so I guess I completely doomed myself for the entirety of the thread...awesome.

Really? You don't see why human rights shouldn't be left up to the states?

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

I simply don't understand why things have to become issues at the federal level.

If we didn't have people trying to put civil rights up for a vote, they wouldn't.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Anytime someone tells me we have to dismantle capitalism and replace it, I just ask how we do that without collapsing the incredibly interconnected global trade system we have so that vital supplies of food, water, oil, and other necessities are still regularly provided to the billions living on this planet. The financial crisis of 2008 had some worried that this kind of threshold collapse might happen; stores running out of food, no gas at stations, loss of electricity. You can't tear down the "system" without a plan anymore than you can just demolish a downtown skyscraper without a plan. And if platitudes are the only plan being offered, I'll stick with incremental socialist changes that don't threaten global stability and are actually achievable.

 

[Guileless]

Because people don't change, we're all the exact same people we were 10 years ago.

She was completely wrong on the two great moral issues of our time and coincidentally changed her mind when it became politically advantageous.

 

[Somnid]

Because people don't change, we're all the exact same people we were 10 years ago.

This to me is illustrative of one of the most problematic things in politics (and arguing in general) and we willingly enforce it. We absolutely 100% expect people to be static in their stances. People do change, research and information changes, culture changes, you make mistakes, you have hindsight but for some reason people get attacked for it. It's considered disingenuous to change ones mind even in the face of utter catastrophe. Flip-flopper and back-pedaler are pejoratives. We idealistically want to say that opinions and positions should change in the presence of additional facts and information and yet we crucify people when they do rather than congratulating them.

Smart people change their minds, dumb people stick to their guns, not the other way around.

It's about as equally annoying as "spineless democrats" and "lol the GOP doesn't have their shit together" when there is a schizm. If we think that there aren't enough options and people aren't thinking for themselves and just "towing the party line" then it should be good if you find that people even in the same party don't agree.

 

[lednerg]

Unless and until campaign finance reform becomes a reality, it's only going to become increasingly difficult to shift control of the government back to the people and away from the special interest lobbies. If there was only one issue we could tackle in the next 10 years, that would be the one. Thankfully, it's something that has support on both sides of the political spectrum - though obviously not in the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority gave us the catastrophic Citizen United ruling.

 

[Sobriquet]

I suppose a lot of my conservatism comes in the form of fiscal conservatism

What's your criteria for fiscal conservatism? Better economic performance? Spending to GDP ratio? The deficit? If it's any or all of those, then I'll assume you vote Democrat.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

All's I know is that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War and gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor in favor of DOMA. So have fun with that, you guys.

To be fair though, Jeb Bush wrote this:

Since the 1960s, the politics of victimization has steadily intensified. Being a victim gives rise to certain entitlements, benefits, and preferences in society. The surest way to get something in today’s society is to elevate one’s status to that of the oppressed. Many of the modern victim movements-the gay rights movement, the feminist movement, the black empowerment movement-have attempted to get people to view themselves as part of a smaller group deserving of something from society.
It is a major deviation from the society envisioned by Martin Luther King, who would have had people judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin-or sexual preference or gender or ethnicity. Eventually there will come a time when everybody will be able to claim some status as a victim of society, leaving few in society who will actually be considered the victimizers. Who, then, will be left to blame in a world in which it is victim against victim?

And he's probably the most progressive Republican candidate for president.

I don't like Hillary.

 

[Dude Abides]

You aren't really offering us any solutions here, OP, aside from vague stuff about dinner table conversations. Vote and organize for the Greens or the Libertarians or some other fringe party if you want to oppose "the system" at the polls rather than the barricades

 

[pgtl_10]

My point is that I see so many in here supporting Hilary Clinton and established candidates despite the fact that, in my view, they are part of the problem. It's easy to support these candidates and attack Republicans but it solves nothing. We need a perception shift where we don't just willingly support the lesser of two evils but instead raise our standards to supporting those only who would be willing and able to fix the corruption and status quo.

I vote green party and someone on this board said I made the Republicans win. People view politics as which team your on rather than idealogy.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I vote green party and someone on this board said I made the Republicans win. People view politics as which team your on rather than idealogy.

No, I believe in Durvurger's Law.

The way to speak your mind is the primary. Then, you vote for the lesser of two evils in the general.

Or well, you end up like the UK or Canada where 40% of the vote can give you Margaret Thatcher or Stephen Harper, because the right knows how to stay in line for (their) greater good.

 

[pgtl_10]

No, I believe in Durvurger's Law.

The way to speak your mind is the primary. Then, you vote for the lesser of two evils in the general.

Or well, you end up like the UK or Canada where 40% of the vote can give you Margaret Thatcher or Stephen Harper, because the right knows how to stay in line for (their) greater good.

I don't believe in that. I vote based on who is best for the job not to make sure somebody loses. The lesser of two evils is an excuse for team voting and bad candidates.

I don't care about outcomes when it comes to my vote.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I don't believe in that. I vote based on who is best for the job not to make sure somebody loses. The lesser of two evils is an excuse for team voting and bad candidates.

I don't care about outcomes when it comes to my vote.

That's great. Must be nice to be in a position where the outcomes don't affect you at all.

 

[Phyranion]

The USA should get more than two parties, giving the people real choice. A two-party system is absurd.

 

[prag16]

I appreciate the sentiment, TC. This was not directed at me. I'm extremely not liberal, in the mainstream sense especially. But there's a lot of value in urging people to take a step back from the usual "rabble rabble rabble go team blue go team blue rah rah Hilldawg, GOP sux dix" rallying cries.

The system is indeed fucked. And it's not any particular party that made things that way. There's plenty of blame to go around.

You have libertarians (the Ron Pauls of the world) who want to strip away much of centralized government power. A less powerful government wouldn't be worth buying off perhaps. Oh but then the corporations would run roughshod over everybody! Clearly, that's already happening. It's not just corrupt government or evil corporation, but more the incestuous revolving door circlejerk between the two that is likely to blame.

In light of this, it confuses me that the left seems to want more and more power for government in every facet of our lives. (Most establishment republicans want that too, admittedly; they just pay lipservice to different things than the democrats.)

It confuses me that people can berate this or that corporation for being so evil and corrupt, but then ignore their incestuous relationships with government/regulators/etc while pounding the table for more government power.

It's all about the money. Conflicts of interest. Bias. With regard to the medical industry I like to reference this: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

A little tangential to the point in this thread, but just an illustration of how public perception can be skewed by conflicts of interests, money, and power. It's how we are "controlled". It keeps us from questioning anything. Nearly all the politicians are dirty. What type of people seek power? A lot of sociopaths. We don't have "reluctant" leaders like George Washington anymore. Those who INSIST one side is really any better than the other (R's vs. D's I mean) in the end, well, you're probably too far gone (multiple people with red usernames have done exactly that in this and other topics recently; I better be careful ).

Speaking of Ron Paul, TC, you mention not automatically entering into discussions asserting that it's self evident that certain people and/or certain views are moronic. Did you not do exactly that in the way you dismissively referred to Ron Paul and his supporters as a bunch of loons? I mean, you talk about how we never have somebody wanting to shake up the system and the power structure... Ron Paul was that guy. Obviously the GOP machinery was never going to let that seed grow.

That was longer and more meandering than intended. I usually avoid the Off Topic side, especially politics, for good reason.

 

[gutter_trash]

you guys keep mentioning the left but the left does not exist in the US.

okay, maybe Bernie Sanders

but the Democrats are Center-Right, Hillary lol she is Establishment Center-Right

 

[Thorakai]

Fight me, ban me for going against the grain, whatever is fine. I don't mean to attack anyone, I'm just sharing my own experience and views.

I don't see why you think you will be banned for going against the grain. Its not like you said anything outrageous, the young are liberals that turn to old conservative saying is common enough. If anything the people quoting you with straw men instead of asking you to elaborate certain points are on thin ice.

 

[Aztechnology]

Bernie Sanders FTW.

Democratic Socialism ftw honestly. Sadly the simple face that Bernie addressed himself as a democratic socialist will make it nearly impossible for him to win. There's far too much fear mongering about the political stance, many people equate it to communism for some idiotic reason.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I mean, you talk about how we never have somebody wanting to shake up the system and the power structure... Ron Paul was that guy. Obviously the GOP machinery was never going to let that seed grow.

Yes, Ron Paul was that guy unless ya' know, you actually understand the damage the Gold Standard did to the poor for generations, are a gay person who wants to get married in many states, a woman who wants to get an abortion, a poor person who wants access to Medicare, a person without a pension who wants a small, stable bit of Social Security for their later years, and so on, and so forth.

Ron Paul is great if you're somebody on Reddit worried the NSA is going to read your emails. Or have missed the left speaking out against the War on Drugs and the need for criminal justice reform for decades.

 

[OuterLimits]

I think virtually any competent Democrat could beat Jeb because as it's been pointed on many times, the electoral college is stacked against the GOP in a major way. It would take a minor miracle for any Rep to win.

True. I say this as a Conservative that it is extremely difficult for Republicans to win the WH. Not impossible, but difficult. The good news is that Conservatives hold the edge when it comes to Congress, especially in off year elections in large part because many Democrat voters apparently only give a shit if it's a Presidential election.

Having said that, I honestly don't expect Jeb to win the Republican nomination. Or if he does, it will be extremely difficult. The far right certainly doesn't like Jeb Bush. Granted, Jeb will do well among more moderate Republicans while the far right split their vote. Although Rubio may hurt Jeb some among more moderate Republicans.

Also I enjoyed reading your post OP. I may not agree with you on many issues, but I certainly think you did an excellent job.

 

[pigeon]

Speaking of Ron Paul, TC, you mention not automatically entering into discussions asserting that it's self evident that certain people and/or certain views are moronic. Did you not do exactly that in the way you dismissively referred to Ron Paul and his supporters as a bunch of loons? I mean, you talk about how we never have somebody wanting to shake up the system and the power structure... Ron Paul was that guy. Obviously the GOP machinery was never going to let that seed grow.

Actually, racism and anger at the government for attempting to prevent racism is about as institutionally consistent as something can be in America. Ron Paul's part of a proud American tradition going all the way back to Jefferson Davis.

Sorry, Hillary was roughly 56 and for the Iraq War and probably around 45 for DOMA. No excuse. She's a disengenuous chameleon like her husband.

So you're angry at politicians for not representing the American people. Then when you see a politician who changes their positions to match their constituency, you slam them for being disingenuous.

Make up your mind!

Hillary is a pragmatist, just like Bill Clinton (you think he really wanted to be tough on crime?), just like Obama ("evolving" on gay marriage). You can trust her to do what's politically expedient, which is fine, because as a Democrat, doing what Democrats want you to do is politically expedient. Pragmatists make government work.

God save me from a President who really believes in something. George W was that man.

 

[Ke0]

I'm happy to know I'm not alone, then. I'll take that.

Getting older doesn't make you more conservative.

Also "fiscally conservative" is a misnomer, there isn't anything about the republican party that is fiscally conservative unless you buy into the idea cut spending on everything and ignore the financial explosion it costs later (or believe in reaganomics). That or you believe in funny math.

Not directed at you persay, but I notice vast majority of people who say they vote conservative because they're "fiscally conservative" really don't know anything about the US political system outside of words "republican", and "democrat"...and the colors of red and blue the two parties represent.

What's your criteria for fiscal conservatism? Better economic performance? Spending to GDP ratio? The deficit? If it's any or all of those, then I'll assume you vote Democrat.

Pretty much what Sobriquet stated.

 

[FyreWulff]

If you think the Democrats are liberals or leftists, you've already fucked up. We don't have a left in America, and due to illegal jailing, trials, and banning of left-leaning parties during the Red Scare, it was actively attacked and emaciated by the right.

Democrats are actually conservative, center right party. Republicans are just even MORE right than they are, and are even MORE conservative. Obama is one of the most Republican presidents we've had in recent history, going by the actual classical definition.

If you are actually left, the current election system basically forces you to vote Democrat right now. Not because the Democrats are "the correct party", but because if you go down their checklist, they just happen to have the more "for" points that you like, and Republicans are either missing those points or against those points. And then due to first past the post, you have to counter against the Republicans to get some of what you want at all.

The Republicans have let themselves be hijacked by the far right element for quite a while, accelerated by the Tea Party. Due to their primary system, you can knock out moderate or liberal Republicans in small turnout primaries then get seats by default in the general election since people in those districts just vote straight R. The party is so lockstep that even if you manage to survive the primary as a moderate republican, the party will bury any bills you write if you don't march along with them.


If you want to start to fix the problems, we need to get private money out of elections and go to publically funded elections. Secondly, we need to go to alternative vote systems instead of FPTP. FPTP always results in two parties. It's just the math of it. And as much as people hate the term, yes, you are literally wasting your vote on third parties in the system.

 

[Monocle]

I read the whole OP. All in all, very well expressed. Here's the thing though. Whenever I see someone unfurl some grand "here's what's wrong with X" type of argument, I look for the call to action at the end to see how specific and practical it is. I'm usually disappointed, and this topic was no exception.

We can discuss the country's problems all day long, but who's going to fix them? Us? Then how? When you make vague suggestions about having uncomfortable conversations at dinner and in the break room, and kind of allude to compromising with conservatives, you really just emphasize the powerlessness of the individual to effect real change. What's the point of intimating the need for some sort of grassroots movement to fix our political system without clearly defined goals or a hypothetical plan of action to achieve them?

Most of us would agree the US political system is broken. Most of us also have personal responsibilities and interests that vie for our attention. I consider myself a politically active liberal to the extent that I vote every chance I get to try to keep bigots, religious extremists (along with the moderates they have by the balls), and antiscientific lunatics out of power. My vote and opinion don't seem to count for much. I wouldn't know where to start if I suddenly became passionate about helping to solve the country's biggest problems. My family turn into a bunch of loonies when they discuss politics, and my friends and work buddies simply don't discuss heavy topics. So I vote to support the one viable party that hasn't been hijacked by people with poisonous social agendas, and I hope for the best.

 

[SPCTRE]

Oh, so it's only the US-based Liberal GAF the OP has to pick a bone with.

 

[anonymous_abc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo Watch this to understand why the US (and other places) are stuck in a two-party system.

Fantastic, thanks!

 

[Aaron]

Kind of. I sympathize with conservatism in that feel problems are better off solved when the responsibility lays solely with the individual and the community rather than expecting our corrupt government to magically solve these issues.

You're starting from a basic misunderstanding. Society exists because you can't trust the individual to be responsbile. That's why we have laws that are for the benefit of and enforced by the community. Our government isn't corrupt. Some people in government act out of self interest, but those tend to be weeded out. What you're mistaking for corruption is largely misinformation in the community supporting that local government. Laws favor the rich, not only because the rich can lobby better, but because the majority don't want to restrict their own possible path to wealth. Maybe they've been misled by their leaders and the media, but this isn't corruption. And 'magically?' Really? We expect government to solve these issues because that's the whole purpose of government, but we can't expect them to when the majority don't hold them to that standard. Government is a reflection of the society that births it afterall.

 

[Aureon]

So, you wanna change the world.

Good luck.

The thing is, you're asking for something beyond the achievable through the standard democratic channels.

You want to start a war.

You see, in the rest of the developer world, the right\left split is something like this:
Right: "Sure, there's problems, but trying to solve them would only cause MORE problems"
Left: "We need to work on solving those problems, No matter what".

And cue insults of "Dreamers" from one side, and "Old" from the other.

In america, you don't have that. You have an extreme right party, and, at best, a centrist party. The political environment of the USA has managed to make "socialist" an insult! - In Europe, 'Socialist' is a political position like many others.

You don't have a beef with liberals. Liberals work with the environment they live in, as they should. You have a beef with the average American voter, and i don't know what to tell you. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, and the majority isn't being ignored. It's winning.

 

[RedSparrows]

Really need a new word. 'liberals' is too broad.

 

[SomTervo]

I think he is talking about mainstream liberals in USA which is against that.

You're talking about economic liberalism, which one could equate with the "laissez faire" free market belief. Think Adam Smith, that's economic liberalism.

Political liberalism, at least in America, is completely different. American political liberalism is essentially the same as "left wing", favoring government intervention to correct both free market behavior and individual behavior. Honestly, the term "liberal" is an odd fit for the American Left. Certainly it's appropriate on social issues, where the Left has been more tolerant on civil rights and equality. But their economic policies completely contrast with the traditional meaning of the term "liberal". I've always thought that there must be a more consistent and descriptive term that they can adopt.

I looked into it, and it turns out in Europe/Rest of World, 'liberal' is taken as shorthand for 'economic liberal'.

For most of the planet, 'liberal' means right wing and conservative.

Do what you will, though, USA.

Also thanks for the info Jinjo! I agree the term isn't ideal. 'Socialist' generally fits pretty well though – economic policies being focused around a welfare state and labourer empowerment, as well as 'left wing' issue views. This is opposite to market deregulation, low tax, and international business focus of 'conservative'.

Spoiler

Imo, there needs to be a balance of both, but nobody suggests that. From what I know, Obama tried it?

America's definition of "liberal" is extremely different from the European version. In America "liberal" means left-leaning (for us) in general.

This American usage greatly annoyed many economists and philosophers.

Thanks for affirming that, too.

 

[Scipius]

For most of the planet, 'liberal' means right wing and conservative.

It does not mean conservative; liberal vs. conservative is the classic dichotomy in politics and the context of the original, proper meaning of the word "liberal". America has perverted its meaning to something different, but it remains a non-standard interpretation in my book.

 

[teruterubozu]

Yup I hate Hillary and I'm a liberal. Actually I have no idea where this thread is going.

 

[trixx]

What I've began to learn over these few years at university is that the capitalist system is probably the best way of doing things simply because it recognizes people as individuals with individual interests. I hate that it breeds inequality,but I've also came to realize that equality is impossible you can only seek to do things that help people gain equal footing. This is why I hope to continue volunteering in communities long-after university cause this is the only way I think I could make some sort of a difference.

I kind of regret dropping political science as that major as well as philosophy had some of the interesting topics of discussion, different points of views, historical ramifications, understanding the laws and how the system works. I don't know if people get more conservative over time, the notion probably isn't true at all.However, I do know that the majority of discussions I've had on various political, social, philosophical issues and topics are pretty much staying at the university (in terms on in-person discussion) which sucks to me.

 

[Fugu]

I'm something of a radical socialist and I can tell you that a big reason that the left has been significantly pacified is that the modern political narrative strongly encodes the notion that the current way of doing things is really the ONLY way of doing things. We need capitalism to utilize market forces; we need wars because we have enemies; we need to rely on non-renewable energy because the alternatives are not economical. Suggesting larger scale changes is just asking to be bogged down with layer after layer of assumptive garbage.

In the US especially the post-Reagan Republicans have done such a good job of controlling the narrative that there is no left any more.