The Great American Third Party

[clenz]

You know he was splitting that little Texan wide **** open after she joined the show.

Don't **** with Texas! That Horshack laugh would drive him nuts.

I could ignore the laugh long enough to explore her units....

[UNI88]

It's obviously all going to be relative to how you perceive politics. But in my opinion, the US is clearly a center/right of center country when compared to other western Democracies. The political spectrum has clearly shifted to the right the past 30 or so years. And once our politicians succesfully dismantles the remainder of the New Deal, we'll be even farther to the right.

"New Democrats" are Centrists. They're willing to deregulate the financial sector almost as much as the GOP, it seems. They're willing to negotiate cuts on Social Security, etc. None of that would have happened prior to Clinton.

The REAL differences between the two major Parties, and the ones that seem to polarize their members the most, are on social issues (gay rights, etc). There's not much difference in terms of foreign policy (Democrats aren't exactly a bunch of Peaceniks) and the economy. Corporations basically regulate themselves, even in a Democratic Presidency...and few are paying much in the way of taxes.

There is no major "Party of the Left" anymore in the US.

This x a million.

Meanwhile, the electorate remains signicantly to the left of the politicos.

x a million?

Can either of you provide examples of how the spectrum has clearly shifted to the right over the past 30 years? Or how our politicians are dismantling the New Deal?

Has welfare been reformed? Yes but I don't think you can call it dismantled. Bush actually expanded social services. As AZ has mentioned we've moved to the left on a number of social issues. Has government spending been cut? Maybe we've moved right on some issues but we've moved left on just as many and probably more. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad but lets not ignore it simply because in one's own opinion not moving far enough is actually a move in the opposite direction.

The reality is that Democrats and Republicans are both beholden to moneyed interests. They both pander to their constituencies in order to maintain their hold on power and access to the spigots of so that they can enrich their friends and themselves. They're both fiscally irresponsible and for that alone should be kicked to the curb.

[dbackjon]

So based on your description, Ivy, how much are you sending to Clinton, because she is very much a centrist.

[Ivytalk]

So based on your description, Ivy, how much are you sending to Clinton, because she is very much a centrist.

The same amount that you're sending to Joe Arpaio.

[dbackjon]

So based on your description, Ivy, how much are you sending to Clinton, because she is very much a centrist.

The same amount that you're sending to Joe Arpaio.

But I don't claim to be a racist, contempt of court, right-wing pig

[Ivytalk]

The same amount that you're sending to Joe Arpaio.

But I don't claim to be a racist, contempt of court, right-wing pig

And I don't claim to be a corrupt, lying, ethically-challenged, left-wing bitch.

[AZGrizFan]

But I don't claim to be a racist, contempt of court, right-wing pig

And I don't claim to be a corrupt, lying, ethically-challenged, left-wing bitch.

Calling hildabeast a centrist is rich.

[dbackjon]

But I don't claim to be a racist, contempt of court, right-wing pig

And I don't claim to be a corrupt, lying, ethically-challenged, left-wing bitch.

So if you think she is a leftist, then your definition of a Centrist Party differs from most.

[Ivytalk]

And I don't claim to be a corrupt, lying, ethically-challenged, left-wing bitch.

So if you think she is a leftist, then your definition of a Centrist Party differs from most.

Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders have grabbed your girl by the thong and dragged her to the left. She speaks to the lunatic fringe who now control your party.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't know about the Green Party but with respect to the Libertarian Party the answer is "no." There's no way Libertarian principles can be considered "centrist" in today's context.

I think they're (we're) generally correct. I think that in the "center" of today's political/philosophical framework is the wrong place to be. I think our culture is way off track. But Libertarianism is not, right now, near the "center."

So you think we are a center-left/progressive country?

I think we are a "left/progressive" country. And I think that's very unfortunate.

[kalm]

This x a million.

Meanwhile, the electorate remains signicantly to the left of the politicos.

x a million?

Can either of you provide examples of how the spectrum has clearly shifted to the right over the past 30 years? Or how our politicians are dismantling the New Deal?

Has welfare been reformed? Yes but I don't think you can call it dismantled. Bush actually expanded social services. As AZ has mentioned we've moved to the left on a number of social issues. Has government spending been cut? Maybe we've moved right on some issues but we've moved left on just as many and probably more. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad but lets not ignore it simply because in one's own opinion not moving far enough is actually a move in the opposite direction.

The reality is that Democrats and Republicans are both beholden to moneyed interests. They both pander to their constituencies in order to maintain their hold on power and access to the spigots of so that they can enrich their friends and themselves. They're both fiscally irresponsible and for that alone should be kicked to the curb.

For starters, Ranger already gave you an example with financial deregulation. Another militarism. Understandable to a certain extent with the war on terror, but as also mentioned Obama and Clinton haven't exactly been flashing the peace sign, man.

A third would be privatization of prisons.

A fourth would be free trade.

A fifth is wage suppression and diminishing the power of unions.

I think this is a very interesting debate and will expand when I have some more time.

[EWURanger]

It's the use of money to manipulate policy, silly. It's why the two parties are so similar in many regards. It's why money and special interests typically win over the desires of the public. Our politics is not about what a majority of the people want on a "personal basis".

Boy did you miss the point on this...as you always do.

I'm never really put off by you thinking I'm missing the point - when we start agreeing is when I'll start to get concerned. What, pray tell, desires of the public are not being met? What great public want, something that everyone apparently wants, is being thwarted by the evils of "special interests" and money? Certainly there are more people with more access to the workings of government, no one would argue otherwise, and certainly some people have taken advantage of their proximity to power to help themselves, no one would argue against that either. There will always be malfeasance and self-interest in anything involving people. But where the Progressive movement, the one you so ardently embrace from your distinctly well left of center position, has so consistently missed the mark is in the complete lack of actual ideas to somehow remedy the failings of government. You rail against the way things are and then come up short on the suggestions on how to improve it. When we've talked about the economy, you want to erect a virtual wall around the country and demand huge access fees for other countries to do business with us. Very Trump of you actually. When it comes to politics, you seem to think that self interest and wrongdoing are only present when money is involved and that the removal of money, if such a thing were possible, would solve all the ills we have. But money to be elected, while certainly significant, is just a drop of water in a vast ocean that is our economy - people will still push for their own self interests after all the electioneering is done. For me, I'd rather focus on the ideas and things we can do to ensure people's well being in their everyday lives - you go right on hyperfocusing on the minutia of election financing since that allows you the luxury of continuing to defend a Progressive movement that has few ideas outside of being upset about things.

You might not be paying attention - but there's plenty of ideas to get after the failings of government. Let's start with publicly funded elections. Doing that changes the entire dynamics of our political system and would potentially go a long way towards solving many of the grievances you described.

[EWURanger]

And I don't claim to be a corrupt, lying, ethically-challenged, left-wing bitch.

Calling hildabeast a centrist is rich.

All "New Democrats" are Centrists.

Hell, the last "New Deal" Politician was actually Nixon, believe it or not.

[EWURanger]

It's obviously all going to be relative to how you perceive politics. But in my opinion, the US is clearly a center/right of center country when compared to other western Democracies. The political spectrum has clearly shifted to the right the past 30 or so years. And once our politicians succesfully dismantles the remainder of the New Deal, we'll be even farther to the right.

"New Democrats" are Centrists. They're willing to deregulate the financial sector almost as much as the GOP, it seems. They're willing to negotiate cuts on Social Security, etc. None of that would have happened prior to Clinton.

The REAL differences between the two major Parties, and the ones that seem to polarize their members the most, are on social issues (gay rights, etc). There's not much difference in terms of foreign policy (Democrats aren't exactly a bunch of Peaceniks) and the economy. Corporations basically regulate themselves, even in a Democratic Presidency...and few are paying much in the way of taxes.

There is no major "Party of the Left" anymore in the US.

Yeah. A shift to the right. That's why government welfare programs are exploding, social issues (gay marriage & other GLBT issues, abortion rights, equal opportunity, etc., etc.) are all moving left (not that that's a bad thing), and an avowed socialist is one of the last 3 left standing for President of the United States (that IS a bad thing).

If that's your definition of a "shift to the right" you might want to look up that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.

We've moved left on social issues, no doubt. And I alluded to that in my original post. But then again, we're sort of catching up to the rest of the western world on some of those initiatives. And like I mentioned before, a lot of those social issues seem to be what polarizes American politics today.

In terms of foreign policy and the economy, yup. Huge shift to the right since Reagan.

I'm actually in the middle of moving house but I'll re-visit this thread once I find my computer.

[Ivytalk]

I'm never really put off by you thinking I'm missing the point - when we start agreeing is when I'll start to get concerned. What, pray tell, desires of the public are not being met? What great public want, something that everyone apparently wants, is being thwarted by the evils of "special interests" and money? Certainly there are more people with more access to the workings of government, no one would argue otherwise, and certainly some people have taken advantage of their proximity to power to help themselves, no one would argue against that either. There will always be malfeasance and self-interest in anything involving people. But where the Progressive movement, the one you so ardently embrace from your distinctly well left of center position, has so consistently missed the mark is in the complete lack of actual ideas to somehow remedy the failings of government. You rail against the way things are and then come up short on the suggestions on how to improve it. When we've talked about the economy, you want to erect a virtual wall around the country and demand huge access fees for other countries to do business with us. Very Trump of you actually. When it comes to politics, you seem to think that self interest and wrongdoing are only present when money is involved and that the removal of money, if such a thing were possible, would solve all the ills we have. But money to be elected, while certainly significant, is just a drop of water in a vast ocean that is our economy - people will still push for their own self interests after all the electioneering is done. For me, I'd rather focus on the ideas and things we can do to ensure people's well being in their everyday lives - you go right on hyperfocusing on the minutia of election financing since that allows you the luxury of continuing to defend a Progressive movement that has few ideas outside of being upset about things.

You might not be paying attention - but there's plenty of ideas to get after the failings of government. Let's start with publicly funded elections. Doing that changes the entire dynamics of our political system and would potentially go a long way towards solving many of the grievances you described.

So you're a kalmunist. Check.

[kalm]

You might not be paying attention - but there's plenty of ideas to get after the failings of government. Let's start with publicly funded elections. Doing that changes the entire dynamics of our political system and would potentially go a long way towards solving many of the grievances you described.

So you're a kalmunist. Check.

Smart man who appreciates competition and democracy and is actually paying attention.

[UNI88]

x a million?

Can either of you provide examples of how the spectrum has clearly shifted to the right over the past 30 years? Or how our politicians are dismantling the New Deal?

Has welfare been reformed? Yes but I don't think you can call it dismantled. Bush actually expanded social services. As AZ has mentioned we've moved to the left on a number of social issues. Has government spending been cut? Maybe we've moved right on some issues but we've moved left on just as many and probably more. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad but lets not ignore it simply because in one's own opinion not moving far enough is actually a move in the opposite direction.

The reality is that Democrats and Republicans are both beholden to moneyed interests. They both pander to their constituencies in order to maintain their hold on power and access to the spigots of so that they can enrich their friends and themselves. They're both fiscally irresponsible and for that alone should be kicked to the curb.

For starters, Ranger already gave you an example with financial deregulation. Another militarism. Understandable to a certain extent with the war on terror, but as also mentioned Obama and Clinton haven't exactly been flashing the peace sign, man.

A third would be privatization of prisons.

A fourth would be free trade.

A fifth is wage suppression and diminishing the power of unions.

I think this is a very interesting debate and will expand when I have some more time.

Before I debunk a few of these examples, let me ask if we put all the evidence provided on a scale, do you think the weight of the evidence demonstrating a shift to the right would significantly outweigh the weight demonstrating a shift to the left? IMO, they would likely balance each other out to a large extent.

Now for your evidence:

Militarism – why is militarism an example of a shift to the right? If you look beyond Dubya at the last 100 years of American history, what party has occupied the White House at the start of most of our conflicts? Yugoslavia – Clinton (D), Gulf War – Bush I (R), Vietnam – Kennedy/Johnson (D), Korea – Truman (D), WWII – Roosevelt (D), WWI – Wilson (D). I'm sure I missed a few but you get the idea. Maybe Obama is just leading the Democratic party back to its roots.

Diminishing power of unions – the power of unions isn’t diminishing in the public sector, it’s growing like crazy. You rail against special interests feeding at the government trough, well public sector unions are part of those special interests and they are just as damaging to the long term health of this country as the Wall St. fatcats getting their way. Why are unions diminishing in the private sector? Because they have accomplished a lot of their objectives and have also repeatedly shot themselves in the foot hurting themselves with management and public opinion. What have unions helped to accomplish? 40 hour weeks, overtime, health & retirement benefits, safer job sites, etc. And what have many of them focused on after all of these things were accomplished? Stupid work rules that pad the number of union jobs in the short term but damage the employers ability to compete and ultimately cost jobs in the long term. In many ways they've cut their own throats.

Cuts in social security – are these an example of a shift to the right or fiscal realism? Social security as it is currently set up is a ponzi scheme. People take out a little more than they put in with the difference being made up by those currently employed. It’s great for those who got in early but eventually the bill is going to come due and it is now with all of the boomers retiring and not enough new people entering the workforce to keep the system solvent. If a private business person set up a scheme like this they would be arrested but it’s OK for the government? A defined benefit plan is fiscally irresponsible.

Free Trade – this is a matter of opinion and I don’t think I’m going to change your mind. I will say that I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. We’re so caught up in trade deficits for goods and manufacturing job losses that we forget that the US economy is a service economy and I don’t think we factor services into our deficit calculations.

The US is moving right because it is right of most other western democracies? The US has been to the right of European democracies since the end of WWII.

[Ivytalk]

So you're a kalmunist. Check.

Smart man who appreciates competition and democracy and is actually paying attention.

What makes you think public financing of elections would promote political competition? You still have incumbent-friendly privileges, the bully pulpit that accompanies public office, and the same old Congressional districts.

[AZGrizFan]

x a million?

Can either of you provide examples of how the spectrum has clearly shifted to the right over the past 30 years? Or how our politicians are dismantling the New Deal?

Has welfare been reformed? Yes but I don't think you can call it dismantled. Bush actually expanded social services. As AZ has mentioned we've moved to the left on a number of social issues. Has government spending been cut? Maybe we've moved right on some issues but we've moved left on just as many and probably more. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad but lets not ignore it simply because in one's own opinion not moving far enough is actually a move in the opposite direction.

The reality is that Democrats and Republicans are both beholden to moneyed interests. They both pander to their constituencies in order to maintain their hold on power and access to the spigots of so that they can enrich their friends and themselves. They're both fiscally irresponsible and for that alone should be kicked to the curb.

For starters, Ranger already gave you an example with financial deregulation. Another militarism. Understandable to a certain extent with the war on terror, but as also mentioned Obama and Clinton haven't exactly been flashing the peace sign, man.

A third would be privatization of prisons.

A fourth would be free trade.

A fifth is wage suppression and diminishing the power of unions.

I think this is a very interesting debate and will expand when I have some more time.

Union power is diminishing because their purpose has long since gone away. They cling to whatever little power they have through corruption and bullying/strong arm tactics.

And I literally lol'ed at your "financial deregulation" comment. I've been in the financial services industry for 21 years....the time and money spent complying with new and continually more onerous financial regulations/regulatory agencies has increased 10-fold since 1995. If THAT'S your version of "deregulation" then you might want to look THAT word up, because it most certainly does not mean what you think it means.

[Ivytalk]

Another factor supporting the move to the left, as AZ points out, is the rise of the administrative state: the circumvention of Congress by the adoption of regulations in education, labor, environment, and health care, to name just a few.

[kalm]

For starters, Ranger already gave you an example with financial deregulation. Another militarism. Understandable to a certain extent with the war on terror, but as also mentioned Obama and Clinton haven't exactly been flashing the peace sign, man.

A third would be privatization of prisons.

A fourth would be free trade.

A fifth is wage suppression and diminishing the power of unions.

I think this is a very interesting debate and will expand when I have some more time.

Union power is diminishing because their purpose has long since gone away. They cling to whatever little power they have through corruption and bullying/strong arm tactics.

And I literally lol'ed at your "financial deregulation" comment. I've been in the financial services industry for 21 years....the time and money spent complying with new and continually more onerous financial regulations/regulatory agencies has increased 10-fold since 1995. If THAT'S your version of "deregulation" then you might want to look THAT word up, because it most certainly does not mean what you think it means.

Meh.

Unions have power through corruption and bullying/strong arm tactics and of course the powers they fight against are all benevolent good actors who play fair.

Unions are just another corporate form looking out for their own self interests. But there has been a concerted and quite successful effort to diminish their power through legislation and campaign support. The power of organized labor is less now than it was 40 years ago. For good or for bad, that is a move to the right.

And Sweet Jesus on Juniper Berries, have you ever heard of Graham-Leach-Bliley or CFMA? One of the board conks (maybe Pwns or Baldy?) has rightfully pointed out the burden of regulations on small businesses vs. big businesses. Big businesses can withstand that and it gives them a further stranglehold on the market. No argument here from me...over-regulation is bad and dark stain on the left.

And then there's the lack of enforcement and revolving door issues between the SEC and Wall Street. YOU of all people should appreciate what I'm saying here.

Regardless, deregulation of things like CDS's and the line between commercial banks and investment banks are classic examples of deregulation. Legislation passed by the 104th congress and signed by Clinton were also a move to the right.

[kalm]

For starters, Ranger already gave you an example with financial deregulation. Another militarism. Understandable to a certain extent with the war on terror, but as also mentioned Obama and Clinton haven't exactly been flashing the peace sign, man.

A third would be privatization of prisons.

A fourth would be free trade.

A fifth is wage suppression and diminishing the power of unions.

I think this is a very interesting debate and will expand when I have some more time.

Before I debunk a few of these examples, let me ask if we put all the evidence provided on a scale, do you think the weight of the evidence demonstrating a shift to the right would significantly outweigh the weight demonstrating a shift to the left? IMO, they would likely balance each other out to a large extent.

Perhaps, but not on the big issues like militarism, the war on drugs, supply side economics and wealth inequality.

Now for your evidence:

Militarism – why is militarism an example of a shift to the right? If you look beyond Dubya at the last 100 years of American history, what party has occupied the White House at the start of most of our conflicts? Yugoslavia – Clinton (D), Gulf War – Bush I (R), Vietnam – Kennedy/Johnson (D), Korea – Truman (D), WWII – Roosevelt (D), WWI – Wilson (D). I'm sure I missed a few but you get the idea. Maybe Obama is just leading the Democratic party back to its roots.

Throw out WWI and WWII as there are obviously times where it's justified, but not a bad point. Democratic presidential records and liberalism are not necessarily one in the same. Modern day lefties like Sanders are more closely aligned with the Pat Buchannon's and Rand Paul's of the world. The dominant paradigm of the last 40 years has been one of nationalism and the idea of pax americana. It's been supported by both sides, but the left has embraced the Clinton's and Obama's rather than the McGoverns. That's a move to the right.

Diminishing power of unions – the power of unions isn’t diminishing in the public sector, it’s growing like crazy. You rail against special interests feeding at the government trough, well public sector unions are part of those special interests and they are just as damaging to the long term health of this country as the Wall St. fatcats getting their way. Why are unions diminishing in the private sector? Because they have accomplished a lot of their objectives and have also repeatedly shot themselves in the foot hurting themselves with management and public opinion. What have unions helped to accomplish? 40 hour weeks, overtime, health & retirement benefits, safer job sites, etc. And what have many of them focused on after all of these things were accomplished? Stupid work rules that pad the number of union jobs in the short term but damage the employers ability to compete and ultimately cost jobs in the long term. In many ways they've cut their own throats.

I'll quibble with the idea that big labor is as damaging as Wall Street. It represents less than 10% of private sector labor now. Which one do you think Obama and Clinton represent more? I'm no fan of unions and agree with the rest of what you've said. But their power is nowhere near what it once was and a beaten down organized labor is a move to the right.

Cuts in social security – are these an example of a shift to the right or fiscal realism? Social security as it is currently set up is a ponzi scheme. People take out a little more than they put in with the difference being made up by those currently employed. It’s great for those who got in early but eventually the bill is going to come due and it is now with all of the boomers retiring and not enough new people entering the workforce to keep the system solvent. If a private business person set up a scheme like this they would be arrested but it’s OK for the government? A defined benefit plan is fiscally irresponsible.

I didn't mention SS, and you just seem to ranting about a pet peeve here. Yet, again, a reduction in government anti-poverty entitlements is a move to the right.

Free Trade – this is a matter of opinion and I don’t think I’m going to change your mind. I will say that I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. We’re so caught up in trade deficits for goods and manufacturing job losses that we forget that the US economy is a service economy and I don’t think we factor services into our deficit calculations.

I keep trying to wrap my mind around how free trade is good for anyone other than multinationals and the investor class, but I haven't been convinced yet. Of course we're a service economy, but technically, without manufacturing (adding tangible value to a natural resource), how do services create actual wealth for the entire economy?

The US is moving right because it is right of most other western democracies? The US has been to the right of European democracies since the end of WWII.

Who else should we be compared to? Maybe Japan?

Or Botswana?

[kalm]

So you think we are a center-left/progressive country?

I think we are a "left/progressive" country. And I think that's very unfortunate.

Compared to whom?

(And if you say "the constitution" I'm gonna come down there and piss in Lacassine Swamp!)

[kalm]

And I don't claim to be a corrupt, lying, ethically-challenged, left-wing bitch.

Calling hildabeast a centrist is rich.

The fact you think she isn't is priceless!

[Ivytalk]

Private sector unionism may be off as a percentage of private sector workers, but public sector unionism (teachers, AFSCME, etc.) is way up. That's a YUGE swing to the left.