Starmer is not left-leaning, he's a liberal (and supports austerity). People should learn the difference between the left, the right and liberalism.
You also have many right wingers (internationally) moving towards things like industrial policy, subsidies, and a populist labor focus (coupled with anti-immigration rhetoric of course). In some cases, even nationalization is under discussion. It’s a wild time to try and label things.
- Right-wing, conservative, authoritarian - society should be governed by elites, conflict should be resolved by submission to authority
- Left-wing, socialist, democratic - society should be governed by equal peers, conflict should be resolved by democratic consensus
- Liberal, individualist, pro-freedom - the question of societal governance (and the arising conflict) should be avoided if possible by giving each participant their own life independent on others
Of course it is confusing because people cheat and do not always want to state their aims clearly. The values are also not opposites, but independent; they can also be applied per problem. For example, most famously, some communists were both left (they wanted a socialist society without classes) and right (they wanted the transformation under the party authority). But each pair of these has a similar conflict like that, so (aside from the communist spectrum above) you get also capitalist spectrum between right vs liberal, and anarchist spectrum between left vs liberal. In the middle of all 3, things are roughly social-democratic.
I think this is also why the term “right-wing” has been misapplied to anyone who challenges the status quo, regardless of their other political positions or their nominal political orientation. Things are bad when literal Communists can be labeled “right-wing” because of their position on some issue. (Yes I have seen this happen.)
Both parties only every get anything done in this country when it comes to voting to restrict our rights. Ideologically, I'm slightly right leaning. My primary value is individual rights are more important. But if I could, I would vote for Ron Wyden(D) despite the fact that I disagree with many of his positions, he's still one of the few that has a spine to oppose things like the federal spying apparatus.
I just don't see the point of investing myself in caring when 98 percent of our reps just really don't care and only focus on manufacturing outrage around wedge issues that they can't or won't actually address so that they can keep their jobs and continue to accrue massive amounts of wealth from lobbying and insider trading. We get Trump because the system is so thoroughly broken on both sides and enough people are frustrated the point that they are "protest" voting.
I don't think people are "protest" voting. You're the one protest voting - by not voting at all. You should ask yourself, why they bother, when you do not.
There are other, more effective ways to vote than at the ballot box. Money, time, voice (depending on your reach), protest, direct action can all have a greater impact.
IMHO building parallel systems is the most important thing right now, as the primary political system is entering a period of crisis that it may not survive. Parallel systems, especially strong local systems, have a long and successful history.
This simply isn't true. What is true is that there's a strong bias which makes it harder, but hyperbole is a form of lying.
> There are other, more effective ways to vote than at the ballot box. Money, time, voice (depending on your reach), protest, direct action can all have a greater impact.
False dichotomy/strawman ... no one said there aren't ... and many of these ways affect who wins elections.
I won't respond further.
> (When it does, they are quickly either ejected or “brought in” to the system.)
As shown with Bernie (co-opted) and most recently with Massie (ejected). You’re not voting your way out of this.
Of course it is, naysayer.
> it's being intellectually tired.
Perhaps that's in part a cause of the former in your case ... but you aren't everyone and I was referring to bothsidesing generally.
> I just don't see the point of investing myself in caring when 98 percent of our reps just really don't care and only focus on manufacturing outrage around wedge issues that they can't or won't actually address so that they can keep their jobs and continue to accrue massive amounts of wealth from lobbying and insider trading.
More intellectual laziness, as well as intellectual dishonesty, offering ignorant simplistic but oh so handy explanations and excuses.
> We get Trump because the system is so thoroughly broken on both sides and enough people are frustrated the point that they are "protest" voting.
This is another fine example of such intellectual laziness. People who actually put in the effort to understand politics know how simplistic this is.
Since you're so tired and don't care, I won't respond further.