The Republican I really respect at this point is Mike Pence. I used to think he was a theocrat idiot with mush for brains. But now I realize he's all that AND a brave and honest man who actually gives two shits about democracy.
It's kind of like going to a restaurant and being forced to pick raw vs. burned beef, and there's a ton of different sides that come with each option that are nonconfigurable. And then critics constantly debate "raw vs. burned" in polls, and try to gain insight from that on whether people really prefer corn or salad or biscuits. But in reality there's just too much noise to generate any signal.
Or they could have delayed past the constitutionally mandated dates, after which it goes to the Congress where the GOP controlled more delegations.
At that point we have a ticking time bomb. At the end of his term is Trump still the president? Or are we a country without a president? When that happens, if Trump stays in the White House and acts like a president, what then? Would the republican filled Supreme Court back his play? Would the military follow him? Who would oppose him? Would the secret service still protect him? What happens if some states recognize him as president, but others do not?
For many of us, seeing what happened to people like James Damore was a turning point that something had deeply changed in the political culture.
This isn't "the left" it's "the US" that had a change of view. The poll numbers are through the roof. And when it's such a personal thing with the very families that are our friends, it's not hard to see why gay marriage is so popular. That you feel "hated" by others for rejecting their friends families is a weird way to put it.
Obama was a centrist for his time, and often times after society opens up to more people it's hard to go back to closing it off to our new members.
As for James Damore, somebody disparaging their colleagues, publicly, and not even their leader for specific actions, but an entire gender, based on bad reading of biology... do you have similar sympathy for the people fired here, or it only when somebody is expressing beliefs that are hurtful to those not at the top?
Gay marriage was a major shift in culture, but bad sexism has been out of vogue for decades, even if overall sexism hasn't decreased a huge amount.
I have all sorts of politically unacceptable views that I don't share. But I don't play the victim for being "hated" just because I don't get my way.
But you're really illustrating my point here, by arguing not that there hasn't been a shift but that the growing hatred and intolerance is in fact a good thing. I feel like this is a more honest position than pretending that prevailing attitudes haven't shifted.
As a personal example, last week I had a comment deleted on Reddit for being "hatred" because I described drag as a form of kink. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but this kind of banal censorship has become a regular experience for anyone who offers any sort of resistance to woke narratives. If you think this is a good change, then I disagree but at least acknowledging that there's been a change puts us in the same reality.
Same on Twitter. A lot.
And if it were political persecution, which it very well could be, Reddit is moderated by absolute randoms from the internet. Starting new subreddits and moderating to one's one preferences is very literal free speech.
Please. We know that this isn't considered as "incorrect" by the people doing the deleting, and that a well-reasoned appeal would be productive. This isn't happening due to simple randomness, as basically anyone who pushes back against woke narratives will attest - for example, openly endorsing JK Rowling's views on gender will get you banned from most of Reddit and quite possibly fired from your job if you do it under your real name on Twitter. This wouldn't have happened 10 years ago.
Again, you're free to say that this is a good change, or just wave all this concerns away with pithy slogans like "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", but I'm just trying to establish that there's been a shift on the left and it seems like you don't disagree with this.
I feel that social media companies are largely to blame here, with the impact of their efforts to increase engagement metrics at the expense of users' wellbeing. We all have a perpetually-available outrage machine in our pockets these days, encouraging us all to react with emotion rather than be considered and thoughtful.
Regarding your example of gender views, the other reason why this wouldn't have happened 10 years ago is that hardly anyone believed that stuff. JK Rowling's opinions would have been met with a shrug. But there has since been a concerted effort to capture the minds of the younger generations at an age where they're unlikely to see the inherent contradictions in this ideology.
I voted "Yes" in Australia's 2017 same-sex marriage plebiscite, and if they repeated the plebiscite again today, I'd still vote the same way. And yet, I feel like there is a problem here. It is a complex question, and I don't think it necessarily has a simple answer, but a lot of people treat it as a simple binary "Yes"-vs-"No", with only one answer to that binary being socially acceptable. And even in pointing that out publicly, I feel a certain degree of anxiety – should I? I don't think it is all in my (admittedly rather prone to anxiety anyway) head, there are external cultural forces contributing to it, and I think it is fair to question those forces.
To give just one example of the many complexities I see: I compare my own country of Australia to the US, and although both arrived at roughly the same destination (legal same-sex marriage nationwide), they arrived at it by very different routes. In Australia, federal legislation, in-principle pre-approved by the voters in a (non-legally-binding) nationwide plebiscite – as such not constitutionally entrenched, but anything approved in a nation-wide plebiscite (even a non-legally-binding one), is politically impossible to repeal without having another plebiscite to approve that repeal. And it was mostly a symbolic measure, since (nationwide) Australian law already gave unmarried couples in long-term relationships (de facto relationships as we call them), whether opposite-sex or same-sex, 99.9% of the rights of legally married couples. (I won't deny the missing 0.1% causes real practical problems for some people, but that is the experience of a relatively small minority, and there is no reason in principle why those problems could not be solved with further legal or bureaucratic reforms).
In the US, a 5-4 Supreme Court decision (Obergefell v. Hodges), based on highly contested principles of constitutional interpretation, which the current Supreme Court majority does not share – and, given they are likely to soon overturn a famous decision based on a similar style of legal reasoning (Roe v. Wade), you have to wonder how long Obergefell will last. The whole situation seems to support the idea that social reforms are better achieved through the democratic process than through the fickleness of judicial decisions–a viewpoint which in the US is often labelled as "conservative" or "right-wing", but not so in much of the rest of the world. Indeed, what in the US is seen as "conservative jurisprudence", in many other countries (Australia included) is just the mainstream consensus approach to constitutional law, to which few would attach political labels such as "conservative".
And, at the same time, that has happened against the background that unmarried couples (whether same-sex or opposite-sex) in the US still lack most of the legal rights and protections granted the legally married–an unfairness which few in the US seem to care much about, even on the Left–and which made the legalisation of same-sex marriage a change of far greater practical consequence in the US than it was in Australia. Couldn't this issue have been used as a vehicle to try to address that unfairness? Well, I think it could have, but my impression is that most marriage equality activists in the US didn't want to try, because they saw it as a distraction from their ultimate goal. A squandered opportunity?
I don't think it is unreasonable for a person to look at the two situations, and think the way the US has gone about addressing this issue leaves much to be desired, when compared to what certain other countries have done–I'm sure Australia is not the only country which has arguably done better than the US has–and those deficiencies in the way in which the reform was achieved in the US are a potential threat to its long-term durability there. But, that kind of nuanced conversation is rather alien to the "either-you-are-with-us-or-you-are-against-us" attitude to this topic which many people seem to have.
The left needs to pay attention to every day issues. It’s not that the right has answers but they have acknowledged these issues as being the main issues. For instance, it should be absolutely not shocking to anyone that inflation has happened and is a direct result of our fiscal policies. Well, some did not seem to be concerned about printing money to buy bonds to fund record deficits which actually paid people and companies to reduce productivity and output. Surprise! School closures are another huge issue. Most of us with children saw the massive harms from keeping them home. It was absolutely devastating! I could go on. The left NDP party of Ontario admitted they focused too much on the chatter-class (Reddit, Twitter, journalists, etc) and not the working class
"the left" and "the right", or "the democrats" and "the republicans" in essence, is too wide a net. "The left go off the deep end" is also, when you look into it, a fairly small percentage of the wider population.
But it feels like people are pushed to the fringes, because the Other Side is being pushed to the fringes. There's just, from the perspective of an outsider, a lot of antagonism between the two "sides".
And that antagonism is being fueled by someone. There's people with a lot of money and / or special interests who benefit off of the infighting and polarisation.
And Republicans will take zero responsibility for Trump and Jan 6th and spend all their time talking about how Democrats want to force your children to be trans.
In the end no one has any responsibility to do anything to actually make the country better. If Musk could start a moderate party that took responsibility for results I would be on board.
There is an upper limit to what level of complexity any group can handle.
But Americans have been told the upper limit doesn't exist so often and for so long that they are learning the hard way where the limit lies.
We have two very pro corporate parties, that are pro military, one who is right and one who is center right, if you look at actual policy and spending. The main difference is on abortion legislation, gay rights, gun legislation (sort of... and that depends on the Democrat), and to an even lesser extent some tax policies, but with political funding how it is, no parties really bite the hand that feed them so 95% of tax policy is talk and "trickle down economic policy" is entrenched, much to the detriment of our country.
Most of the substantial difference is talking points and bluster, it pains me to say. Even gay rights is pretty new to the table... that didn't come about until Hillary Clinton ran against Trump, when she finally changed her position on gay marriage (though I think she was one of the last major hold outs).
The major problem with our American system of politics is the two party stranglehold that has been imposed upon and that those two parties have made nearly impossible to rid ourselves of. It's one of the things (other than war profiteering and insider trading) they vehemently agree on.
The main thesis of the book is that the success or failure of nations is predicated on institutions working in a predictable way and guruanteeing broad and equal access to these institutions and the economy at large. The US was better than other countries at this for most of its existence (despite the horrible "exclusion" of non-whites and women). Today, the US seems to be slipping, and while I do agree that the Democrats aren't innocent on this either, and things like insider trading, corporate lobbying and political nepotism apply strongly to both parties, the Republicans always seem to be a bit worse (or have worse marketing).
Only having two choices in party certainly makes this way worse, but there's also the constant challenging of political norms that I would think mostly comes from the Republican side. (Although Obama was the first president to largely rule by EO, which itself is a pretty major breach of convention, and an attack on the democratic instituions)
This is an honest inquiry.
It’s sort of a joke but it’s more sad. I used to vote Republican and I would again if anyone there was even half willing to be more considerate and rational.
Outside of partisan politics the left is seeing some more successes, that is in the broader culture war. This includes broader acceptance of LGBTQ+ rights, calls for immigration reforms, calls for reprimands for centuries of slavery, etc. However these successes are not making their way to the legislator by a long shot, and quite often to the contrary (see e.g. reversal of Roe v. Wade).
And I say this firmly from the left wing of the political spectrum.
Stuff like this is rampant right now. The left has thoroughly won the culture war.
The follow-up question to demonstrate this point would be "would an American who identifies as radically left-leaning join a European conservative right-wing party if they moved to Europe?"
Cultural Marxism is not a thing, please educate yourself beyond the videos of the lobster psychologist. You claim the left is 'radicalized' in a right-wing country where the right-wing party literally tried to undermine democracy through an insurrection less then a year ago...
And somehow the narrative is about the non-existent 'radicalized left' doing stuff and cultural Marxists trying to change our pronouns. It just feels sad to hear.
The actually difference in beliefs between Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell is paper thin.
Who cares? The US is not a European country, so the point is irrelevant. And although I see it repeated a lot, I don't think it's factual either.
I am particularly curious about politicians and their actions, rather than woke twitter users, since we are discussing who we vote for. Please do mention if wokeness is your main complaint with the left, as it seems to be the case for many conservatives I know, but I felt the need to mention I don't believe wokeness is actually relevant amongst politicians.
As far as I can tell, left leaning politicians have not gone off the deep end in any objective sense. Their voting patterns seem to be mostly centrist/conservatives leaning and have remained that way for some time.
Without concrete examples, it is really hard to accept "people want different things" as an explanation for statements that I would consider to be outright false. So I ask in hopes that I might understand the opposing perspective on this.
In 2019, Democrats in Virginia tried to pass a bill that would allow abortion at the point of birth. Long past viability, basically just unnecessarily killing the baby.
I'm not a conservative, but I respect conservative values such as the rule of law. I will grant you that the populist wing of the Republican party in no way reflects conservative values.
As crazy as the left in the U.S. might be, it's genuinely hard to beat the craziness of e.g. suggesting that injecting bleach is a legitimate COVID-19 treatment, or shameful pandering to anti-masks, anti-vaccination sentiment.
They dropped it after being ridiculed, but I mean the President was suggesting the government control speech.
That’s a slide into tier two.
https://nypost.com/2022/06/16/kamala-harris-leads-latest-bid...
Left intellectuals have gone off the deep end, sure, but the actual left politicians in power are solidly centrist.
Meanwhile Trump.... The Republican party isn't just off the deep end, they're a genuine danger to democracy globally. As the US goes, many other countries follow and as a Brit, and conservative one that grew up in the Thatcher/Reagan heyday at that, I dread the thought of another Trump presidency. I'll never forgive the Republican party for putting us through that the first time. Thank all the gods and angels the Russian invasion of Ukraine happened under Biden, he may be a bumbler but at least he's not an out-and-out traitor to democracy and the national security of his country.
1. There are like 4 progressive members of Congress. Compare this to how many Republicans openly support QAnon conspiracies and other right-wing positions;
2. Anywhere else in the world, the Democrats would be a center-right party;
3. The Democratic Party actually hates progressives and goes out of its way to rid the party of them. Look at the hit job on Bernie Sanders in 2016. Look at the recent primary in the Texas-28 where Nancy Pelosi and Clyburn went to campaign for Henry Cuellar, who is pro-gun and the only anti-choice Democrat remaining in the House over Cisneros, an actual progressive;
4. Based on leaks there's a high likelihood the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade, pushing back 50 years of progress;
5. IN 2008 (in Heller) the Supreme Court for the first time recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right;
6. The Roberts Supreme Court also decided money is speech, which has openeed the floodgates for primarily conservative PACs;
7. The same court gutted the Civil Rights Act in terms of voter protection, which has led to a wave of anti-voter measures in red states;
8. Primarily red state has gerrymandered the hell out of states. For example, in Wisconsin, the GOP holds a super-majority despite getting 10% less of the vote;
9. Despite numerous incidents of easy access to firearms leading to the mass murder of school children multiple times there is not (and will not be) any meaningful restriction on access to mass murder machines (aka assault rifles);
10. Obamacare, pretty much the only lasting achievement of the Obama era, has largely been gutted;
11. Trump's tax cuts despite a Democrat in the White House and Democratic control of the House and Senate remain largely in place; and
12. As soon as the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, they'll probably next come for gay marriage.
This is just off the top of my head. So how exactly has the left gone off the "deep end" exactly?
There's really only been progress on two issues:
1. Gay marriage was legalized (but, as noted, that's at risk of being reversed); and
2. There have been advancements in trans rights.
This I think is the crux of the matter when people talk about the "far left". They really mean they hate trans people and want them to go away.
Conservatives are sore winners but great propagandists as evidenced by the fact that this myth that conservatives are "losing" perpetuates at all.
[1]: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519735033950470144
> They really mean they hate trans people and want them to go away.
It is certainly an issue; viz various bathroom panics over the last decade. But, at least in the tech sphere, most of the fear I've seen comes from Twitter BS and hate. There are vocal people who want to use "wokeness" as a tool to attack people. I can see how it would be easy to conflate those kinds of attacks with progressivism for people who are predisposed against progressivism from the start.
The left has gone bonkers and anyone whose even a moderate is considered a conservative.
The mob turn on him for trying to buy Twitter is so disturbing though. It is straight Jacobin.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity..if you disagree in any sense, then the guillotine.