What would it take to fall out of love with the right-wing?

[K. A. Pital]

When the left wing purges itself of the criminally insane people who pursue such insane policies as unilateral disarmament

You could start up a Military-Socialist Party, Shep. "Everyone is equal... in the Military!"

Technically though I don't see your right wing leaders being too adept at procurement of military systems, with stuff like NLOS-C, LCS and V-22...

[Vendetta]

Actually, an attempt to rebuild the military back to 1960s levels, as good as it would be for Shep's erectile problems, would probably be what it would take to kill the credibility of the right wing. The taxpayer cost involved in doing so given the current state of the US economy would destroy the nation entirely.

[Shroom Man 777]

Of course, the shitloads of economic, social and other issues plaguing America right now are nothing compared to such important things such as the toys the US military gets to play with...

[Lusankya]

What I find interesting is the way the crazies on the left discredit the left, but the crazies on the right don't discredit the right. How is "all dem faggots must be burned" or "Well, dat dere slut should hav' thunk sum before she done spread her legs" (to name a couple of examples) less criminally insane than advocating unilateral disarmament?

[Shroom Man 777]

Women, negroes and queers matter as long as we get to keep our guns (and our nuclear bombers)?

[Shroom Man 777]

Don't matter, I mean. Sorry.

[Uraniun235]

it's not "less criminally insane"

but the examples you cited cater to existing prejudices in american society, whereas calling for unilateral disarmament is basically asking america to hand over all its guns (in a culture where gun ownership is a sacred right)

[Uraniun235]

god damn it that should teach me to use the quick reply feature in a non-editable forum

[Lusankya]

Didn't Huckabee also say that he thought that the separation of church and state should be revoked during the primary? Granted, he lost the primary, but that was because he wanted to help poor people, and not because he hated secularism. You'd think that would be a pretty "sacred right" too, since it's part of the constitution and all.

[Rye]

It's well understood in the popular consciousness that communism is extremely given to totalitarian dictatorship. This gets conflated with socialism and Americans do not care to check on the socialist successes in the world (like the NHS, pioneered by a self-defined socialist against the usual right wing arguments). I don't know how you'd do it, but if the recent BBC documentary on the NHS were able to be shown to a mass American audience (rather than Michael Moore's stuff, which while entertaining only really preaches to the choir), and showed all the problems with the American health system, you could potentially stir some change in a majority. For the moment, I'm thinking of the following in documentary terms.

Ayn Rand needs to be villified in popular culture as much as Marx is, in my opinion. Americans probably don't know who she was and don't understand how her philosophy influences theirs and their masters'. Laissez-faire capitalism and by extension absurdly deregulated capitalism need to be shown to be the farce that they are. They need to be as identifiable with evil and inefficient behaviour as marxism and over-government are currently.

The old boy network and race in America need to be tackled head on and the right wingers need to be taken to task on the myths they perpetuate about these things. The average white right winger thinks these things are minor at best and he needs to be shut up. I don't know how you'd accomplish this since that information seems widely disseminated. The right just seem to dismiss it out of hand because they've heard it before.

Tackle Christianity in politics perhaps by resorting to founding-father wank. Make sure that the separation of church and state gets emphasised in the popular consciousness. Bush et al have done the opposite, it shouldn't be too hard to build up the perception of innate corruption of church and state with films or documentaries about religious demagogues.

I don't think the Zeitgeist would shift until 10, 20 years of successful left wing politics and media had passed, though. You need the dogmatists to die out and you need the bad opinions to be even more culturally unacceptable. It's at least some of the way there now. The right has even tried to co-opt leftist ideas about smashing glass ceilings for women with Palin, and you can't successfully run on a platform of segregation anymore.

[Samuel]

Left-wing doesn't mean you have to be a peacenik Shep- just look at the Soviets. It is just that militism is often aligned with social conservatism.

I'd complain about your priorities, but a good way to stay safe is to be on top- just because we are good now doesn't mean we will always be.

As it is, for turning left-wing... all the old people have to die. I can't think of anything else. Maybe I am overestimating stupidity and bullheadedness but you could probably have Dick Cheney eat a baby on national television and have people defend him.

[Sarevok]

Provide for the security of the United States as needed, keep the critical trade lanes open, provide a nuclear deterrent, etc?

Despite flaws that it may suffer from American military power will remain unassailable for many years. So why is it so important to prioritize it over other needs ? The expensive change and makeover Mksheppard calls for can't be cheap at all. Until some other power begins to approach America in tank for tank, plane for plane, carrier for carrier why would it be necessary to undertake such a great expenditure when there are many other issues facing US as well ?

[Darth Wong]

Military discussion split. It's all well and good if someone wants to propose that the left-wing becomes more militaristic in order to win over the American people, but actual specific system-related discussion of military capabilities and strategies is completely off-topic for this thread and you know it.

[Coyote]

Is Obama right-wing because he knows he won't win if he takes a left stance in the first place, or does he truely believe in the issues Mike pointed out?

I think it is because the entire spectrum of American politics is to the right of everything else in the world, with the exception of outright dictatorships.

The people we consider "Leftists" in the USA would be center-right Nationalists if they were dropped into any European parliament; even the most far-right Nationalist in Europe would not think of questioning his country's cradle-to-grave healthcare system, for example. Such a stance would be unthinkable in America, causing conservative brains to explode.

Huh... worth a shot, that.

[Coyote]

When the left wing purges itself of the criminally insane people who pursue such insane policies as unilateral disarmament, et al; and would rather see America vunerable in the name of "global stability".

... Eliminate those that bleat, and watch as the left-wing becomes a more credible alternative.

There is an element of this, too. In other countries, "Angry Leftist" conjures up scary and serious images of armed guerrillas willing to fight in the hills for their cause. In America, in conjures up images of Birkenstock-clad potheads who might be stirred up enough to write a vicious blog about you, or maybe a whack with their Che Guevara manpurse if you're not quick enough.

They're not really seen as 'serious', and certainly not 'macho' enough to be appealing.

[Coyote]

Actually, an attempt to rebuild the military back to 1960s levels, as good as it would be for Shep's erectile problems, would probably be what it would take to kill the credibility of the right wing. The taxpayer cost involved in doing so given the current state of the US economy would destroy the nation entirely.

Quite the opposite. We endured it before, under the Reagan Defense Buildup which made us Great. Admittedly, some of that was psychologically needed after the Vietnam era when America seemed to be a demoralized paper tiger (demoralized, certainly), but in retrospect combining a wild defense buildup with deep cuts in taxes and no oversight over military procurement wasn't the best combination, realistically.

But, it played well to those who saw the fancy toys, the "rebuilding of pride" and "newfound strength" and got a war, hard wee-wee in response. It would elicit the same reaction now, especially if tied to the idea that "we're following in the Great One's footsteps!"

[Coyote]

It seems to me that the right-wing can do no wrong in America. Right-wingers can start a war on fraudulent pretenses, run up hundreds of billions of dollars in deficits, fire scores of qualified, experienced employees for ideological impurity, use the Justice Department to settle personal and political grudges, hopelessly mismanage both an occupation and an economy, tear down the wall of separation between church and state, make fools of themselves by championing a brain-dead woman's "right to life", and yet ... most Americans are still proud to call themselves "conservative".

The bolded part is the key.

As long as "Conservatives" are identified with "church" and therefore "goodness and wholesomeness", then anything they do must serve some sort of higher, greater good --eventually. It may not pan out in our lifetimes, but even the most short-sighted things that seem troublesome now will have a payoff in "goodness" somehow, later.

Part of it also is because ALL conservatives have become tainted with this association, even "reasonable" conservatives who are economically motivated but not necessarily interested in social issues. Until the Rockefeller Republicans ditch the chuch crazies, they'll be painted with the same brush. Of course, then they will be exposed as Randroids, and as someone said earlier, Ayn Rand needs to be as vilified as Karl Marx for the economic conservatives to become cleansed as well. It may be happening, in little dribbles, as Alan Greenspan (another fallen idol) is revealed at least in Huffington Post to be something of a Randroid.

The coming Republican civil war may start weeding them out. The mouth-frothing church crazies are already setting up Palin for a 2012 challenge. This time the question will be if the non-religious conservatives will fall in line with them, rather than the business-fellation conservatives will pick a champion and try to goad the Bible humpers to go along.

[ArcturusMengsk]

When the left wing purges itself of the criminally insane people who pursue such insane policies as unilateral disarmament, et al; and would rather see America vunerable in the name of "global stability".

Bilge. You are aware that Ronald Reagan, towards the closing days of his Administration, very nearly talked Gorbachev into accepting the zero option at Reykjavik, and only deterred because it would have meant ending his beloved missile-defense program? Or that Barry Goldwater, though in favor of increasing American stockpiles of weapons, wanted also to use it as leverage to attempt global disarmament?

The left-wing isn't the only faction that dislikes weapons proliferation.

[TithonusSyndrome]

It seems to me that the right-wing can do no wrong in America. Right-wingers can start a war on fraudulent pretenses, run up hundreds of billions of dollars in deficits, fire scores of qualified, experienced employees for ideological impurity, use the Justice Department to settle personal and political grudges, hopelessly mismanage both an occupation and an economy, tear down the wall of separation between church and state, make fools of themselves by championing a brain-dead woman's "right to life", and yet ... most Americans are still proud to call themselves "conservative".

The bolded part is the key.

As long as "Conservatives" are identified with "church" and therefore "goodness and wholesomeness", then anything they do must serve some sort of higher, greater good --eventually. It may not pan out in our lifetimes, but even the most short-sighted things that seem troublesome now will have a payoff in "goodness" somehow, later.

It gets even broader than religion. For lapsed-Christian blue-collar Americans, the conservative appeals to emotion and gut instinct go further than the religious ones and ties into religion to boot, even if the dominionists form the loudest of the cheerleader contingents. "Punishing success" with socialized market practices? Welfare "queens"? Liberals are effeminate? No evidence for any of it, but it makes sense from a "gut" perspective, especially for an intolerant asshole.

The gut is the greatest gift to the right-wing vote-seeker there is, greater than the bible or the bomb.

[Uraniun235]

Didn't Huckabee also say that he thought that the separation of church and state should be revoked during the primary? Granted, he lost the primary, but that was because he wanted to help poor people, and not because he hated secularism. You'd think that would be a pretty "sacred right" too, since it's part of the constitution and all.

americans saying one thing and believing another well i never


A lot of constitution-worshipers behave much in the same way as a lot of Bible-thumpers: they'll scream and pound their fist about the parts they really care about (burning queers at the stake, gun ownership for all) while twisting or ignoring the other parts that are inconvenient to their ideology. A lot of people who argue against secular government will argue that the first amendment does not call for church and state to be separated, but rather that it calls for government not to interfere with the church while allowing the church to meddle as much as it wants.

That said, it's not really relevant. Most people who love their guns don't do so because they think the constitution says guns are awesome - they do it because they really love their guns. It's an existing cultural prejudice just like the others you cited.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Hell, if Obama had the spine to, he could start using the word conservative as an insult right now. It would probably go over pretty well in this political climate. All he has to do is repeat some buzzwords like "Socialism for the rich, free market for the poor" or "steal from the poor to feed the rich", and they would probably catch on. Just copy the strategy of the right.

Nonsense. I hate to cross-post it from a thread I initially posted, but I think that an event which happened just today bears repeating here. These telemarketers, when prompted by the company they work for to robo-call for the McCain campaign, got up and walked off their jobs. This, in Indiana. And in our present social mire, at that. These people were Richard Nixon's base.

This proves that in fact the "Silent Majority" might just exist, even if it isn't bristling in Nixonian rage. It might just exist and vote for our side. So no, I don't believe that an effort to adopt the standard Republican bellicosity would do us well in the end. I do, however, feel that we have reached a historical peak of the sort that carried Dick Nixon to power: a frustration with and antipathy towards the dominant Party (in the Executive), a sour economic perspective associated with the incumbent President, and an ongoing foreign adventure most voters disagree with in some aspect. I believe this Nixonian sentimental wave will propel Obama to victory, but it will not be of Reagan-like margins. If this parallel is true, we might be seeing the beginnings of a turn towards a somewhat more liberal voting population. The sheer fact that Republican tactics are now actually being, if not called out, then at least discussed as smears, indicates that there . All Obama needs to do it continue dominating each news cycle with something positive, and let all this side-show, character-issue bullshit flow under the bridge. Hell, we even (admittedly) have our equivalents to Hannity and O'Reily, though they are (also admittedly) not quite as widespread in their ratings just yet. Ten years ago, that would have been unthinkable. And all this, not because of some 'lie-brul media conspiracy", but rather because there's an audience for it now.

The reason that Republicans so dominated the politics of this decade is simple: because it had deeper roots in the infotainment markets. Something happened under Clinton that forced the media as a whole much further to the Right that it had been even eight years before. Fox News so dominated the medium that it manipulated the mandate. And only now, just recently, does it seem to me that the intentional-meme that "Fox News = propaganda" really be accepted into the mainstream of the greater cultural mythology. The Democrats have something this year, if they can keep it. It may not be as large as the Republican-oriented sections of society forged in the Reagan years just yet, but it could be. It has the potential.

Or maybe I'm wrong, basing my approach on gut feelings. But if that's what I'm doing, just imagine what all those other assholes that gut-check their political sensibilities are thinking.

[Surlethe]

I wonder how much of it has to do with a total and abiding mistrust of government?

None whatsoever. Americans are full of shit when they say they have an unusual mistrust of government; it's one of those Big Lies, like "rugged individualism". In reality, you have more trust in your government than a lot of other countries. In some countries, there would have been riots in the streets at some of the shit the Bush Administration has pulled.

Americans only have a mistrust of socialism; any government program which does not sound "socialist" in any way has the implicit trust of Americans; that's why you imbeciles all tramped happily into Iraq despite your allies telling you that you were full of shit.

Fair enough. But as you point out, it's a lie that Americans believe about themselves; it's, in some sense, entered the zeitgeist. So long as "liberalism" is explicitly associated with "big government taking care of you", Americans who think of themselves as opposed to big government (even if they would readily embrace the military-industrial complex) are going to oppose it. The myth of American individualism and mistrust of government is opposed to the perception of liberalism as the government stepping in to run one's life. That's why "nanny state" is another of those negative buzzwords that gets tossed around; it elicits a reaction from Americans who believe the Big Lies.

In other words, as long as Americans believe the Big Lies about themselves, and believe that liberalism is socialism, they'll oppose it because they won't see their hypocrisy.

[ArcturusMengsk]

In other words, as long as Americans believe the Big Lies about themselves, and believe that liberalism is socialism, they'll oppose it because they won't see their hypocrisy.

Then that's going to have to change, isn't it?

Look: as long as we liberals continue to discuss, for instance, 'patriotism' in connection to 'conservatism', we lose. Even when we make it known that their 'patriotism' is really 'flag-waving' and their 'conservatism' mere 'corporatism', we still seem as if we're attacking their patriotism. But there seems to be a new breed of progressives, Obama being simply the most prominent, who seem to be able to overcome character assassins and smear attempts and seem more American than ever. Two others I can think of are Brian Schweitzer and Tim Kaine. What they can do is make liberalism respectable, patriotic, by connecting it to American values like 'honesty' and 'charity'.

As I type this, Keith Olbermann is on the television next to me and dissecting McCain's efforts to turn Obama's 'landslide' narrative into 'voter complacency'. Olbermann's show is now directly competitive too Bill O'Reilly's. Many people are for the first time being exposed to a liberal viewpoint not filtered through the caricature that is Alan Colmes. I'm not contributing all the Democrats' successes this year to Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, but their very existence helps to poke holes in the total blanket cover of conservative media control. The days of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove and message control is over for them.