Do you agree with Obama's compromise?

[Zinegata]

1. Liberal and left are not the same thing- in American politics yes,but in world politics where there are more positions, liberalism refers to a specific economic ideology, namely noninterventionist capitalism. That is not a left-wing position, but rather a centrist to right-wing one, with neoliberals to the right and classical liberals dead. Even American liberals aren't all that left-wing, when considered in the context of the world.

You're deliberately muddling the issue to avoid having to admit that America does in fact have a far-left component.

The definitions of "left" and "right" vary not only from country to country, but also in terms of issue. You can lean "left" in international issues ("No to foreign interventions!") and yet be right wing in terms of economic issues ("Yay Capitalism!")

You are focusing entirely on the economic spectrum. And as I've already said, there are no American socialist parties. So your mocking is not only redundant, but nothing more than semantic wordplay to prevent yourself from having to admit that a "far left" - in terms of liberal thought and social justice - does in fact exist in America.

I have done the proper qualifications. You're muddling them because I called out people like you who are being whiny bitches about America having "no far left", when what you actually mean is "We have no socialists!", which makes sense in a country where the poor can already be considered propsperous for much of the world.

2. The far left refers to socialist and anarchist groups

Cha-ching. See? Nothing more than Semantic word play.

3. You are incredibly wrong here. The idea that America has always had good labor relations

I did not say you had good labor relations. I said your worker's rights are vigorously enforced. Really, are you going to deny that whole thing in Winsconsin just a couple of months ago never happened?

Also, are you going to deny that the level of wealth in America - even of the poor - far outstrips even that of many Third WOrld nations. Which is the primary reason why socialism never took hold?

You keep avoiding this point entirely in favor of attacking points that I never actually made.

4. I don't think you understand what ideology is, or what common sense is, or much of anything really.

Yes I do. It's called being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole, because you think that you're actually changing the world by being an asshole.

Like what you're doing now, by mocking the opposition because they have the temerity to call what you do as useless posturing.

5. The fact that you can look at the American political situation and insist that Democrats are categorically against cutting spending is a large part of what's wrong with the USA today.

I see. That whole stimulus package and the healthcare bill were not Democratic initiatives then? :p

Let's stop the lies here Bakustra. You're a far-left hack. You will attack anyone who disagrees even mildly with you. Thank you for showing exactly what is wrong with America, and why your nation is completely and utterly fucked.

It's not because of the Tea Party or other imagined enemies. It's because of hacks like you, for whom "Looking before leaping in the name of ideology is not part of our MO".

6. There are no socialists within the Democratic party on the national level. The only socialist on the national level- Bernie Sanders- is an independent with no party who caucauses with the Democrats, who he disagrees with on a number of issues. I doubt there are too many socialists within the Democratic party on the state or local levels, as in areas where socialists could run for office in theory there are usually actual socialist parties they would prefer to run under.

Uh-huh. So caucusing under the Democrats does not make him a defacto Democrat? Fine, but that's just more semantic wiggling.

Perhaps, if as you claim to be such a great and wonderful student of American politics, you should instead propose an actual working solution instead of just avoiding having to admit that you're a socialist hack whose solution won't work for a country whose people are already rich by worldwide standards.

His idea is stupid, but the overall idea is the only way you have to reestablish American liberalism/social democracy, though you'd have to work at least twice as hard as the Tea Party to get where they are. The Republican leadership showed their true colors, and they are not believers. The Democratic leadership is the same. In order to get things done, you need people who believe in them to enter the corridors of power, and seize the reins. Without actual progressives and social democrats in power, there will be years before gay marriage is legal nationally, if not decades, as the corrupt (and you are mistaken in characterizing the Tea Party as any more corrupt than the current Republican leadership) political order in this country mouths about it until it becomes as overwhelmingly opposed as DADT, after which you will need to wait until it finally gets thrown as a crumb to you, in between Wall Street suckling at the bites it leaves on your neck when it feeds. Forget about any economic reform in that time either. You may have to say goodbye to the middle class as the central contradiction of capitalism rises from its own R'leyh, too. Good luck!

Yeah, sounds more like Robspierre gearing up for his reign of terror than an actual appeal to the democratic process to me.

[TimothyC]

Oh PLEASE! That the teabaggers are dumb enough to swallow that sort of conspiracy drivel is not the issue here. They're not the ones who originated the Death Panel mythology, that was down to Sarah Palin's operatives and it was very deliberate. That is why the Troll has no point on this, no matter how much he truly wants to believe he does.

I think I may not have made my point clear. Lonestar pointed out that the so called 'Death Panels' were less inaccurate than the 'Tealiban' line you made:

How is "Death Panels" less of bullshit than "Tealiban"? In a contrived way it's accurate because any healthcare committee that has to ration resources is going to be deciding who lives and who dies. But referring to the tea party as the "tealiban" is "rhetorical flourish" because, uh...well it just is! Of course, you could just man up and admit that it's political bullshit for the sake of bullshit to make the TP "the Other", but you're just going to jab your fingers in your ears and go "LA LA LA IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN LIBERALS DO IT".

You responded by arguing that the 'Death Panels' were not what he was talking about:

Not even remotely close, troll. The manufactured "death panels" controversy was deliberately designed to demonise that part of the Heathcare Reform Act which covered the set up of doctor/patient consultations regarding the handling of end–of-life decisions, which is NOT determining who shall and shan't get care or just be cut off and "left to die" by arbitrary bureaucratic fiat —the Appeal to Emotion the Right hoped to use to scare everyone away from universal healthcare.

All I was doing was pointing out that from my personal experience in interacting with people who support Tea Party candidates and causes, Lonestar's statement about what the 'Death Panels' were was correct, not weather the name was stupid, or the fact that members of said political affiliation were are overly thick and miss the fact that insurance companies do this anyway.

[Anecdote]The individuals that I have found my self interacting with over the past couple of years who wish to discuss politics with me, and are what could loosely be termed as 'Tea Partiers' (IE they don't go to rallies as such, but do support Tea Party candidates and causes), established to me that it was the government organs that would establish minimum levels of acceptable insurance care were the 'death panels'. This does not make their position any less stupid or untenable, but it does show a lack of comprehension of their views on your part.[/Anecdote]

For the record, I voted "I approve, and will not vote for him next year" - Although at this point No one that I have voted for in the most recent election for that position is in national office, so take that as you will.

[Bakustra]

Oh, Zinny baby, explain what "far left" means to you, so that we can move forward. However, treating economics as though it is altogether separate from politics and treating the Democratic party as though it has social positions that can be conceived of as radically leftist is still hilariously stupid.

It's hilarious that you think that descriptive statements such as "far left generally refers to socialist and anarchist groups" are whining.

It's even better that you think that the US, bastion of at-will employment and currently working on making all its states right-to-work, has excellent worker protections.

It's wonderful that you think that ideology means, and I quote, "being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole, because you think that you're actually changing the world by being an asshole." Such a masterful grasp of reality!

It's frankly dishonest and in bad faith to selectively read my posts, but I doubt that you are doing so, because of your crowning glory, the massive gold dunce cap, layered in emeralds and other carborunda, spelling out "What an idiot" in many languages that is:

Yeah, sounds more like Robspierre gearing up for his reign of terror than an actual appeal to the democratic process to me.

This stands for itself. You cannot even parse: "In order for a thing to happen, people with the power to make it happen must want it to happen", let alone: "Therefore, if you want something to happen, you have to make sure that the people with the power to make it happen agree with you." So sad for you, to be so unencumbered with brains.

But you managed to eke out something approaching a response rather than a blubbering breakdown:

I see. That whole stimulus package and the healthcare bill were not Democratic initiatives then? :p

Let's stop the lies here Bakustra. You're a far-left hack. You will attack anyone who disagrees even mildly with you. Thank you for showing exactly what is wrong with America, and why your nation is completely and utterly fucked.

It's not because of the Tea Party or other imagined enemies. It's because of hacks like you, for whom "Looking before leaping in the name of ideology is not part of our MO".

You see, you gibbering moron, people spending money does not mean that they are opposed to cuts altogether, and looking at what has actually happened, rather than in the echoey confines of your skull, shows that the Democratic party is A-OK with cuts, even to social programs with value. But again, you have no understanding of American politics beyond that of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, so this is only to be expected. You also produced some garbage about how socialism only works if you're really poor. Explain why this is the case, and try not to make me laugh in the process, too, Zinny honey.

[Zinegata]

The conversation, in its essence, without Bakustra's epic fail attempts at mockery:

<Alyrium> There is no far left in America!

<Zine> There is, particularly in terms of liberalism. What you actually don't have is a socialist party.

<Bakustra> Zine is an idiot who doesn't understand that "left and right" vary from country to country! And America has no far left because far left = socialists!

<Zine> You admit that "left and right" has many varied definitions. I merely clarified that America does have a "far left" in terms of specific issues. What it doesn't have is a socialist party.

<Bakustra> WAAAAH!

======

So... I said America has no socialists. Bakustra said America has no socialists. We both said "left and right" vary from country to country. I merely clarified that when people claim "America has no far left", they are actually whining America has no socialist party.

And yet Bakustra is raving on about how I don't understand American politics, when we are both stating the exact same things.

Really, it's shit like this that convinces me that the Tea Party was really little more than an overreaction to Internet fuckwits like Bakustra.

Also, I stand by my definition of ideology. I've yet to mean anyone on the Internet who religiously subscribes to an ideology and who wasn't a borderline raving lunatic who keeps trying to shout down anyone else who disagrees.

Finally notice how Bakustra avoids the point that the reason why there are no socialist parties in America is because of America's relative affluence? The reason why he's angry isn't because I'm being stupid. It's because I'm pointing out that the ideology of socialism is not needed nor wanted by Americans. It's a cold, hard reality that he wants to deny, and he thinks he can get away with it by being an asshole and calling other people idiots.

Pathetic.

[Bakustra]

The conversation, in its essence, without Bakustra's epic fail attempts at mockery:

<Alyrium> There is no far left in America!

<Zine> There is, particularly in terms of liberalism. What you actually don't have is a socialist party.

<Bakustra> Zine is an idiot who doesn't understand that "left and right" vary from country to country! And America has no far left because far left = socialists!

<Zine> You admit that "left and right" has many varied definition. I merely clarified that America does have a far left. What it doesn't have is a socialist party.

<Bakustra> WAAAAH!

======

Really, it's shit like this that convinces me that the Tea Party was really little more than an overreaction to Internet fuckwits like Bakustra.

No, I was talking in global rather than provincial terms. You see, in the overall global scheme, there is no politically active far left within the US, and only a small far right. Talking in provincial terms is idiotic, because it hampers understanding and attempts to make it impossible to express the problems that there are with the American political spectrum. In other words, define the positions of the American, politically active far left in such a way that it makes sense on the global level to call them "far left".

People who use the term epic fail unironically should be forced into aversion therapy until they stop. It was never funny and it is a sign that your sense of humor is a prosthetic abomination grafted onto you by the internet. Confess this to a psychologist and they might be able to help you with your absolute wretchedness, Zinegata.

Also, answer my points. It's the mark of a coward to do, well, most of what you're doing here, but especially to refuse to answer responses people have made.

Finally, you are quite frankly a massive child and always will be, no matter how long you live. You know how Shakespeare wrote about how senescence is second childhood? Well he wasn't thinking about you!

[Zinegata]

I mock Bakustra for being reduced to feeble mockery and stupid arguments.

No, I was talking in global rather than provincial terms. You see, in the overall global scheme, there is no politically active far left within the US, and only a small far right.

Again, how does this differ from my statement: "What America does not have is a socialist party". When you again define "far left" in global terms as "socialist and anarchist".

No, let me answer for you, you lying shit: There is NO difference. At all. It's just semantic wiggling.

Also, answer my points. It's the mark of a coward to do, well, most of what you're doing here, but especially to refuse to answer responses people have made.

I have answered all points that you have made coherently. I will not dignify your childish ravings with answers however. Those aren't points. Those are you being an ideological fuckwit idiot.

If I missed any, point them out. Don't expect to like the answer however.

[Patrick Degan]

Oh PLEASE! That the teabaggers are dumb enough to swallow that sort of conspiracy drivel is not the issue here. They're not the ones who originated the Death Panel mythology, that was down to Sarah Palin's operatives and it was very deliberate. That is why the Troll has no point on this, no matter how much he truly wants to believe he does.

I think I may not have made my point clear. Lonestar pointed out that the so called 'Death Panels' were less inaccurate than the 'Tealiban' line you made:

How is "Death Panels" less of bullshit than "Tealiban"? In a contrived way it's accurate because any healthcare committee that has to ration resources is going to be deciding who lives and who dies. But referring to the tea party as the "tealiban" is "rhetorical flourish" because, uh...well it just is! Of course, you could just man up and admit that it's political bullshit for the sake of bullshit to make the TP "the Other", but you're just going to jab your fingers in your ears and go "LA LA LA IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN LIBERALS DO IT".

You responded by arguing that the 'Death Panels' were not what he was talking about:

Not even remotely close, troll. The manufactured "death panels" controversy was deliberately designed to demonise that part of the Heathcare Reform Act which covered the set up of doctor/patient consultations regarding the handling of end–of-life decisions, which is NOT determining who shall and shan't get care or just be cut off and "left to die" by arbitrary bureaucratic fiat —the Appeal to Emotion the Right hoped to use to scare everyone away from universal healthcare.

All I was doing was pointing out that from my personal experience in interacting with people who support Tea Party candidates and causes, Lonestar's statement about what the 'Death Panels' were was correct, not weather the name was stupid, or the fact that members of said political affiliation were are overly thick and miss the fact that insurance companies do this anyway.

Oh for fuck's sake...

It does not matter one jot what the teabaggers perceive as the truth in their little universe. The Death Panel mythology was a deliberate lie, spun out by political operatives of the right, for express propaganda purposes to play upon that sort of paranoia and frighten people about the "horrors" of government healthcare. It is not correct in the slightest. Not even remotely correct.

His question: "how is "tealiban" less of bullshit than "death panels", missed the mark by a wide margin. I wasn't saying it was "less" bullshit but rather flatly that it was, quite simply, bullshit compared to "tealiban".

Lonestar was actually attempting to forge an equivalence between "Tealiban" and the Death Panel Myth to support his already rickety "argument" and it reeked of desperation on his part. There is a marked difference between a metaphorical insult and an outright lie crafted for propaganda. I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

[Lonestar]

Oh for fuck's sake...

It does not matter one jot what the teabaggers perceive as the truth in their little universe. The Death Panel mythology was a deliberate lie, spun out by political operatives of the right, for express propaganda purposes to play upon that sort of paranoia and frighten people about the "horrors" of government healthcare. It is not correct in the slightest. Not even remotely correct.

His question: "how is "tealiban" less of bullshit than "death panels", missed the mark by a wide margin. I wasn't saying it was "less" bullshit but rather flatly that it was, quite simply, bullshit compared to "tealiban".

Lonestar was actually attempting to forge an equivalence between "Tealiban" and the Death Panel Myth to support his already rickety "argument" and it reeked of desperation on his part. There is a marked difference between a metaphorical insult and an outright lie crafted for propaganda. I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

Oh, nonsense. Like I mentioned, "Death Panels" is contrived, and misleading, but it would be inaccurate to say it's an outright lie. If you want to claim that "tealiban" is a "rhetorical flourish" when it's less true than "Death Panels" you have a serious case of cognitive dissonance. That is, in your mind it's a-okay to ramp up and equate the other side with something terrible so long as it's YOUR side doing it.


When Patrick Degan tries to affiliated the tea party with a bunch of thugs who use physical violence to achieve their ends, it's "rhetorical flourish". When Sarah Palin says that government healthcare will cause "death panels" it's "bullshit" even though it's a lot less contrived than the "tea party taliban".

[Bakustra]

Zinegata, explain why provincial definitions should be used ahead of global ones. Explain what "far-left" positions are in American terms. Explain why socialism cannot work in the United States. Explain how the US has strong labor protections when at-will employment is universal, agricultural workers are not subject to break laws, and right-to-work laws are gaining strength and followers. (Doing this would entail defining what strong labor protections mean, too.) Finally, do all these without saying anything along the lines of "Well it's better than Zambia, therefore it is good overall," because that's not an argument, that is petulance.

These are all positions you have articulated, but are unwilling to defend. I'm going to give you one more post in which to at least attempt a defense of them.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The United States has always been a very liberal ("left") country. Far more liberal than Europe. Freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and all that are sacred even to your most extreme right-wing parties. In many European countries, the extreme right are actual fucking Nazis who don't believe the Jews were gassed at Auchswitz - like that fuckwit party in Norway whose member shot up dozens of kids in Utoya.

I never made any claims about the european extreme right. There are extreme left and extreme right parties in europe, but pretending the US has a left or even center is fantasy. It does not when you plot political parties on a world-wide political spectrum. Compare for example the german CDU to the Democrats. The german center-right is more progressive than our progressives.

So this idea that America has no "far left" is a fantasy created by disgruntled fools on Internet forums who go "WAAAAH!" because there happen to be people in America who happen to disagree with them.

Or, we compare the political spectrums in most of europe, plot their policies and platforms, then do the same with the US, finding that Democrats are to the right of european center right parties.

What "far left" policies do the democrats support and put into action? Certainly not conventional center to center-left wing policies like universal healthcare, generally not torturing people, avoiding wars, regulating businesses, assistance for working parents, decent education. Nope. None of those in recent decades.

What America has never had is a socialist party. Which makes sense, given that poverty was never really a problem for America, and that worker's rights have been vigorously enforced.

And at this point, I know you have absolutely no grasp of american politics and history, and as a result, I will treat you like the moron you are.

Go look up the terms "Robber baron" and "gilded age". The whole reason we dont have a socialist party, is because the socialists and union organizers in the period were shot, put in prison, or blacklisted.

Compared to the rest of the western world, our worker protections are not and have not historically been very strong. I want to know, if you are rejecting comparisons to other countries as you seem to be, how you are evaluating the relative nature of strong worker protections and rigid enforcement.

Moreover, socialism will not solve any of America's current problems. Because a socialist party will just be yet another fuckwit party driven by ideology rather than common fucking sense.

Ah yes. Because socialism, in the form of social democratic parties, cannot do anything right. Nope. Just ignore all the nordic countries. Nothing to see there.

What America needs right now is to raise taxes AND to cut non-essential government spending. But with both existing parties holding the other as anathaema, you're never gonna get anything done.

No moron. First, define "non-essential". Second, what solution are you trying to solve? The debt issues, or the crushing double dip recession? If you want to solve the debt, sure... but right now is a REALLY bad time to do that. Recessions require economic stimulus in order to end, which requires government spending. How they go about this is also a good indicator that we have no left wing. A left wing would have emphasized demand side stimulus: Infrastructure rebuilding, other work programs, direct payout programs to the unemployed, food stamps, tax cuts for working families balanced by tax increases for the rich, foreclosure protection. Instead, we get supply side stimulus, which creates jobless recoveries in the stock market, and both parties supported said supply side stimulus

It just so happens that demand side stimulus is more effective.

Adding socialists into the mix (who are currently running under the Democratic ticket anyway) will just result in more bullshit.

There is ONE socialist in federal office right now, and he runs as an independent.

Alyrium, when you build a movement based on fanaticism, you end up with the fanatics in control. They will dominate the Left like they have dominated the Right.

And when you exclude the fanatics, you lose the numbers game. The majority of left wing fanatics in the US, I worry about much less than the right wingers. Oh no! Gay rights extremists, anti-war nuts, hippies! Oh no!

The biggest difference is that left wing fanatics and right wing fanatics behave much differently due to a mindset difference between liberals and conservatives. Getting liberal fanatics to act in concert is like trying to herd lizards. They dont really have a unifying ideology, but rather are unified by policies they support. You will end up with a metric shit ton of smaller groups, each focused around their pet issue, which votes in concert because the politicians supported by the coalition have positions highly correlated with all of them. Each of them works on their own little piece, while the leaders of the movement ultimately have control over the direction.

Contrast this with the tea party movement which is made up of ideologically unified fanatics.

It is the difference between melding multiple but mutually supporting subcultures into a political movement vs having one large subculture becoming a movement.

Even if you are correct, and the liberal and conservative fanatics are equivocable, what harm will the left wing fanatics do? The worst it will do is turn the US into a bigger version of Norway (because most hold up the Scandanavian countries as an ideal with respect to their various pet issues). A left wing paradise is a very pleasant place to live. A right wing paradise looks like Somalia.

In any case, the ends don't justify the means. I'd rather we take a few losses than crawl down into the gutter. This is just like after 911, when we were told we had to torture and detain people without legal rights in order to defend our freedoms. That kind of thinking is wrong, and it leads to very bad things.

Here is the difference. Our left wing fanatics are idiots, but they dont support anything that is all that objectionable. Right wing fanatics DO support things which are objectionable.

Abortion
Right Wing Fanatics: Fanatically support the de facto reproductive enslavement of women
Left Wing Fanatics: Fanatically support the right to free choice

Environment
Right Wing Fanatics: Fanatically support the destruction of the earth's ecosystems in favor of unchecked economic growth
Left Wing Fanatics: Fanatically support the protection of ecosystems, regulations on pollutants, and water quality standards in drinking water

LGBT RIghts
Right Wing: Execute the gays, just look at Uganda
Left Wing: Fanatically support the idea that gays are humans to.

I could go on. The point is, the left wing fanatics in the US are not exactly something that should be feared when it comes to the policies they support.

His idea is stupid, but the overall idea is the only way you have to reestablish American liberalism/social democracy, though you'd have to work at least twice as hard as the Tea Party to get where they are.

I am perfectly happy to refine the specifics if the overall idea is sound.

What would you change about implementation that might actually... you know... work.

[Patrick Degan]

Like I mentioned, "Death Panels" is contrived, and misleading, but it would be inaccurate to say it's an outright lie. If you want to claim that "tealiban" is a "rhetorical flourish" when it's less true than "Death Panels" you have a serious case of cognitive dissonance. That is, in your mind it's a-okay to ramp up and equate the other side with something terrible so long as it's YOUR side doing it.

"Contrived" and "misleading"? Try deliberate, outright fucking lie —because that's the only way you get the end-of-life consultations provision of the HCA to turn out as "deeath panels". No, troll, you have no argument.

When Patrick Degan tries to affiliated the tea party with a bunch of thugs who use physical violence to achieve their ends, it's "rhetorical flourish". When Sarah Palin says that government healthcare will cause "death panels" it's "bullshit" even though it's a lot less contrived than the "tea party taliban".

The reason why Right-wingers are so butt-hurt by the Taliban label is because, in several aspects, there are bases for comparison —namely their zealotry, their intolerance of opposition, their absolutist quest for ideological purity, and a willingnness to force their philosophy upon government and the people despite any objective harm that will accrue to the society at large as a result. Several groups have indeed resorted to thuggery to effect political change in the recent past: the mob that stopped the vote recount in one Florida county back in 2000 springing immediately to mind. Almost nobody who hangs the label "Tea Party Taliban" upon these people is actually seriously arguing that they're about to engage in mass-violence. Further, Martin Frost wasn't the first or only person to apply the comparison. It was arrived at independently by Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd, and at least three other columnists within the past several months. Righties are going apeshit over the label on their persecution-complex boards spread across the intertubes because it's very obviously struck a nerve.

[Patrick Degan]

But there ARE death panels in the health care act: it funnels billions into the private insurance industry. Mrs. Palin was right, but for the wrong reasons.

Not quite: as the provisions of the HCA outline, the insurance companies cannot deny service due to any preexisting condition. True that it does funnel taxpayer billions to private industry (one of my axes to grind about this new setup, along with the lack of a public option), but the whole fairy story Palin and that other tool Betsy McCaughey yammered on about simply has no basis in any real world.

Recall Yukon Barbie's infamous Facebook posting from back in 2009:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.

That doesn't even touch on any arrangment of payments to insurance companies or incentives they may find for offering up end-of-life coverage plans of their own but is, quite simply, a work of pure fiction.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wow, could you use more loaded language in the differences?

I actually could have, but reality has its own liberal bias. The pro-life movement is fundamentalist, which is inherently misogynistic. Even if the rank and file dont think they want to turn women into chattel, they operate on a set of values which do exactly that when applied.

Similar things can be said with regard to the environment. The spin and bigoted dog-whistles are irrelevant. What the policies do, what the people in power who drive the movement actually want are what actually matter, and those are pretty much in line with the differences I listed.

For example: People who are against gay marriage only like local government when said local governments give them what they want. When a state court decides, they decry the judgement. They send missionaries across state lines and commit election fraud etc in order to get what they want. That argument is not what any of them actually believe. It is a dog-whistle in the same way that concern over Obama's "values" and "past" are dog whistles for "he is a muslim, and not really an american citizen"

[Stark]

Man, you can't make that shit up. Reality has it's own liberal bias, which is why you need an extreme left win to terrify democrats into loyalty!

[Alyrium Denryle]

Man, you can't make that shit up. Reality has it's own liberal bias, which is why you need an extreme left win to terrify democrats into loyalty!

You might want to use better construction techniques for your strawmen. You make it sound like I am supporting the Reign of Terror or something. Oh no! A left wing (because something like a european social democratic party is so extreme ) that might actually vote against the democrats and keep them from lurching ever rightward! The Horror! The HORROR!!!!

[Stark]

You basically create a left wing version of the tea party, and put the fear of god into the democrats which is necessary to keep them from further rightward shifts. Rigidly enforced ideological conformity. Use the tactics of the republicans against them by being willing to shun those who work against our interests.

No reign of terror, right? Strawman, right?

You're such a self-parody it's not surprising you're ignored. Putting the fear of god into them, just like the tea party using social pressure to try and alter rather than reflect culture ... but what you meant was 'vote against democrats'. Because, right, thats what the tea party ... does... uh...

PROTIP - absurd hyperbole that you think sounds tough and no-nonsense actually just makes you (and your message) look fucking stupid. Grow up and start saying what you mean, not what you think makes you sound like a level 20 Culture Warrior.

[Bakustra]

Alyrium, your position gets dumber the more you clarify it. What I outlined was not terrorizing Democrats into voting for what you want (an idiotic solution at best), but replacing them, in what is known as a "throw the bums out" solution. I do not believe that that is tenable for a real, long-term solution, but I believe that it is what is necessary to restart social democracy within the US.

[weemadando]

Anyone else ever get the feeling that peeps need to read about the origins and history of the Australian Democrats?

[Stark]

How important do you think the fixed par of the voting population is to this? I mean some people don't care or aren't paying attention so they may vote for someone who isn't running anymore, so in some perfect world of politically mobile poet kings, do you think such split situations could reflect the mood?

In any case, doing so short term always looks bad, but I have no idea what the lead time to establish a new brand is in politics; it could be decades.

[Bakustra]

How important do you think the fixed par of the voting population is to this? I mean some people don't care or aren't paying attention so they may vote for someone who isn't running anymore, so in some perfect world of politically mobile poet kings, do you think such split situations could reflect the mood?

In any case, doing so short term always looks bad, but I have no idea what the lead time to establish a new brand is in politics; it could be decades.

It depends on the situation really. The US Republican Party displaced the Whigs completely in the course of six years, but they had a major issue which destroyed the Whigs altogether and which they could build support on. Other parties haven't been able to do so because the existing parties have been able to coopt their issues. As it is, the US system makes third parties nearly irrelevant even if they do manage to get in, since they have no chance of playing kingmaker. As it is, I don't think a third party would be viable at all in the current American system.

[evilsoup]

Don't they have about five important political parties in Canada? Of course, it's not a perfect comparison, but it's a country of similar scale and (somewhat similar) culture to the US: how long did it take for those to become established?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Alyrium, your position gets dumber the more you clarify it. What I outlined was not terrorizing Democrats into voting for what you want (an idiotic solution at best), but replacing them, in what is known as a "throw the bums out" solution. I do not believe that that is tenable for a real, long-term solution, but I believe that it is what is necessary to restart social democracy within the US.

Wait wait wait. You mean to tell me that my position, which is in effect "create a coalition that will have the cohesiveness and wherewithal to vote out democratic politicians, or make them afraid of being voted out... which is kinda the point of having voter accountability, but which is not being done right now because of fear of republican rule" is stupid, but your position which when you boil it down has to be exactly the same in practice is not?

Perhaps you have the same problems with reading comprehension that Stark does. Maybe I HAVE been inarticulate. I am afterall, a very rage-filled and sarcastic person. Maybe I also misread the substance of prior objections. See the list below for something clean and no-nonsense.

No reign of terror, right? Strawman, right?

Do you know what context is? I am not talking about using fear of shooting up a rally. I am talking about the fear of being voted out of office. Not terrorizing political rallies by carrying around AR-15s or talking about second amendment remedies.

PROTIP - absurd hyperbole that you think sounds tough and no-nonsense actually just makes you (and your message) look fucking stupid. Grow up and start saying what you mean, not what you think makes you sound like a level 20 Culture Warrior.

You want the bullet points? Ok.

1) American liberals currently are running around headless, and have been lurching to the political right for thirty years, spurred on because the democrats try to imitate the republican ideology because their own base is so ineffective at winning elections. This creates a positive feedback loop, which has been in effect since Reagan.

2) American liberals will not vote against democrats who do not support their preferred policies because they fear the rule of republicans. This fails to punish democrats for their rightward shift at the ballot box.

3) The only way to break this is actually... make the democrats fear a backlash from their own base. This is not a hard concept. The problem is implementation.

4) You need a large enough political block willing to vote third party or sit out elections entirely. Politicians can read poll results. If they see a huge upswing in votes for third parties, aggressively fought primary challenges, and massive drops in voter turnout, they will get the message that they cannot take their base for granted anymore like they have been. The GOP fears and appeases their base (because pro-lifers will just sit out the election). The Democrats dont. All the Tea Party is, is a collection of the Republican base. That is all. The republican base just so happens to be filled with dangerous gun-toting crazy christbertarians (I cannot think of another word to describe corporatist theocrats) The democratic base is full of college students, hippies, gays etc. One group is inherently more dangerous than the other.

5) The tea party is successful at making the GOP tow their line, not because of physical intimidation, but because they are willing to sit out elections and are large enough to successfully challenge those who displease them in primaries. That is why the GOP votes with them in lock step. The likes of Boehner fear being voted out of office come election time. The only aspect of the tea party I want to take is the idea of a cohesive and highly visible political block, willing to kill their own party's short term winnings for long term success. Again, voter behavior only. None of the crazy terroristic shit.

6) In the short term, splitting the party is bad. See Destructionator's post above. In the long term, it may be the only solution. This can be actual or even better (in the short to medium term anyway) de facto. Say, create a situation where the members of the progressive caucus will be willing to vote against deals negotiated by party leadership. This will force the party leadership to concede things to them, rather than just concede things to the republicans and expect party line votes from the caucus. In effect, you create a coalition government without actually splitting the one party. This is what has happened within the GOP when the Tea Party took a good number of seats. We know it can work, because it has already happened.

[Stark]

Dude, the parliamentary system is different to the American system. Even so, dominance of issues like Bakustra said still occurs.

[Bakustra]

Don't they have about five important political parties in Canada? Of course, it's not a perfect comparison, but it's a country of similar scale and (somewhat similar) culture to the US: how long did it take for those to become established?

Three of those five are small, and notice that in the most recent election they got even smaller (well, one usurped)- it became essentially two-party between the NDP and Tories. Now, part of this is because the BQ and Greens are small parties with fairly narrow foci that are able to be coopted but usually are not. Also note that the parliamentary system allows those smaller parties to play kingmaker, especially the BQ, which usually wins solidly in Quebec. They can choose to form coalitions and demand roles in the government in exchange. The US has no means within its system by which this can happen, because the writers of the Constitution were short-sighted enough to think that they could eliminate political parties.

Alyrium, your overall problem is that you think in terms of making the party leadership do what you want. The problem there is that the Republicans are not beholden to the Tea Party, because they have failed to enter the leadership of the Party. Instead the Tea Party serves as a convenient boogeyman. Your proposed coalition would end up the same way, just turned in the other direction. The only way is for genuine social democrats to enter the Democratic leadership, or rather take control of it.

[Count Chocula]

Boehner wilfully, with much arm twisting, screwed the pooch on the debt cieling slash "budget" deal. I think O won and there will be another round of house cleaning on both sides of the aisle next year. The deal is laughable.

PS I still think O will be a one termer.