Mirror Images - far left and far right

Much is made of the political polarization in America. We are divided into right and left and red and blue. However, it has long been the Moose's view that most Americans are political hybrids - they are conservatives on some issues, liberals on others and fall into the middle on most. However, both parties usually play to their respective bases.

The left and the right have more in common than is commonly recognized. They are both populated by those who Eric Hoffer described as true believers who inhabit a cozy world of political certainty. The right and the left are on constant guard for political heresy and correctness. They loathe the perceived heretic in their midst more than their political adversary. Some can make the transition from right to left effortlessly because they are so much alike.

Politically speaking, the American people will never select a party to lead them that appears infected with a Tourettes like rage. They will always opt for strength and optimism over weakness and pessimism. Think FDR,Truman and JFK.

In a certain way, America is truly united. The ideologues of the left and the right are co-dependent - they need each other.

And in the Moose's humble opinion - they deserve each other.

http://www.bullmooseblog.com/2005/12/mirror-images.html

No, they are not mirror images. The far right has power, controls the country and has done so not only in current times but also in the past. I defy him to point to any far left person, extremist, politician, etc. who has any power in this country now or for that matter has in the past 20-40 years. No president met or has met with Abbie Hoffman, Noam Chomsky, Zinn, Moore, etc. Yet they have with Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and their ilk.

The hate, insults and slurs constantly emanating from the right wing wacko christians is much more intense, rude and derogatory than anything the left has put out. All I can say is we are damn lucky that our minorities and poor don't take those insults to heart like they did in Australia.

"The hate, insults and slurs constantly emanating from the right wing wacko christians is much more intense, rude and derogatory than anything the left has put out."

which is, that words without any kind of power behind them are meaningless. The point of the article was that the extreme right and extreme left are mirror images and cancel each other out. I say that is hogwash because the difference is that the extreme right has power and connections to money and power that affords them the ability to control and direct the discourse. The left has no such power. When something that Noam Chomsky says gets repeated ad nauseum in the mainstream media as fact, then I'll believe they are "mirror images". Until then that's not the case.

But, I am talking about here, at DU. And, the points do get repeated here ad nauseum at DU.

Several times on this board I've asked those who say Dems are just as bad as Repukes to back it up with quoted statements from Dems.

Nobody has been able to do so.

Because Repukes are in a league all their own. From Willie Horton to Swift Boat Liars, they lie, defame, libel, slander, and throw mud CONSTANTLY. It's their only weapon.

The extreme Left & the extreme Right are NOT mirror images.

One is striving for tolerance and compassion for all people and the other practices domination and greed. Painting this as a "mirror image" scenario is another way that the Right tries to justify their stance & marginalize their opposition.

I have said for many many years now, that in order to move the middle, you have to have the radicals.

I am proud to be part of the Extreme Left in my thinking.

That summarizws my hitherto fuzzily-formulated thoughts EXACTLY. Thanks also from me. I'll "plagiarize" it (in a good cause).

pnorman

... if the far left had power we'd just be in a different flavor of shit.

Fact is, I've been remeniscing about the 60s and 70s and nothing strikes me so obviously as the FACT the the rhetoric of the right now is an exact mirror of the rhetoric of the far left in the early 70s.

It was not enough to denounce society's ills, those who did not fall in line were villified. It is no different than Rush, except the level of factualness about it, and the pervasiveness of it. The mainstream media didn't give as much play to the far left as the far right currently gets, but that is a detail.

I'm totally convinced - the right licked their wounds in the late 70s and asked "how did this happen", and learned FROM US (us being the far left).

Honestly, what far left equivalent of what the right currently has, would be an example of someone who Clinton took a meeting with or met with for advice or who had access to people in power? Or when Carter was president? Or Kennedy? I'm not saying there aren't shrill voices on the left or gadflys equivalent to Rush. My point is that the difference is that the democrats in power always have kept the more fringe and radical elements of their side at arms length whereas the right embraces them and gives them access to that power once they have it.

I'm not saying I'm 100% right I'm just saying that as of the right here and right now, the "both sides suck equally" argument is a ploy and is not accurate.

... that the more extreme views of the right are expressed more than the more extreme views of the left were, I already admitted that as a matter of pervasiveness, the right has done better.

But in terms of the villifying, shaming, name-calling - give me a break - the anti-racists, anti-sexists might have been correct for the most part but that didn't keep them from being every bit as strident and accusatory as the current crop of wingers.

If you were there, you remember or you are in denial. If you weren't, there are plenty of books and publications you can read to get my point.

I've actually pointed out on here that I think a lot of the immediate responses to Clinton being elected and the "aren't we all great" climate led directly to the rise of the Rush's and Hannity's, etc. A lot of the PC left (I get ripped for even saying such a thing exists, but whatever) WAS really shrill. But again, even with sympathetic eyes and ears holding the corridors of power during the Clinton years and even when the Dems controlled congress prior to that , the far left had little to no impact within the confines of our legal, political, and judicial system. Compare that with what the far right has been able to accomplish and that is where the whole mirror image bull gets tossed out the window. So are there shrill voices and extremists on both sides? Yeah, of course and each can be just as bad as the other but until both sides have equal access to power then it's all a straw man argument.

Believe me I've been called enough names on here by people to know how extreme things can get on our side. But the fact is that this is a messageboard that I can choose to use or not use. The extremists on the right have the power to directly influence and impact my life beyond my control.

... but you say the left never got what it wanted and I disagree vehemently.

The dramatic changes in the laws in the 70s did not sit well with large segments of the population. Abortion being legal at the federal level, affirmative action, environmental regulation, rights for various folks, 99% of which I think was good legislation and overdue - felt to some like they were taking it up the ass. And to make matter worse, there was a lot of giddy, vindictive talk coming from our side while we did it.

Anyone who cannot see that 1980 was a backlash and we are still in the backlash doesn't want to see it.

The thing is the right took our methods, refined them and shoved them back up our asses. Our entire economic zeitgeist (if you aren't rich you are a loser) is reinforced all throughout pop culture, just as our message was pervasive in the 60s. It is not just talk radio they did here, they HIJACKED THE CULTURE and it has worked well for them.

It's about over for them but only because their actual policies hurt too many people and smoke, mirrors and spin only work for so long, only as long as the illusion can be maintained. We are heading for an economic waterloo, and it will be the end of the Republicans for a long time. But it is a shame it had to come to this.

And the giddiness about it (which I'm too young to remember...I'm only 35) if it was as you described probably did contribute to a lot of it. But as you yourself aknowledged, a lot of it was good legislation and long overdue. And I would argue that none of those positions are supported only by "extremists". When I think of extremists on our side I think of people who want to dismantle the military, have maximum wages, abolish religion and things like that.

.... the left swept into power and made massive changes. They pretty much got their whole agenda passed into legislation based on their power and popular sentiments of the time, but even so there were large swaths of the population who were vehemently against a lot of it.

What do we have now? A Republican majority sweeps into power (albeit not legitimately) and immediately passes a mass of legislation to cut taxes for the rich, bail out corporations, loosen safety nets like bankruptcy and starts are war that cannot be based on anything other than economics, be it stuffing the pockets of no-bid contractors or trying to secure oil.

It's the SAME THING and you will of course see the equal and opposite reaction, that is why we are here.

Fact is our system of government makes these wild swings too easy, if they were dampened we might see a larger segment of the population getting on board with a more deliberate government and avoid this costly whipsawing.

I enjoyed this discussion with you and thanks :)

The 'wild swings of the pendulum" if we can call it that, doesn't get discussed nearly enough on here. I think that's a whole other animal that we all (well some among us) want to close our eyes towards.

When Repukes get what they want, people suffer and die.

When Democrats get what they want, the majority of people have better lives and the planet becomes a better place.

And I STILL have yet to see one statement by a Democrat that has been as vile, viscious, and reprehensible as most things said by Repukes. I want quotes.

That in terms of how they behave the far left and far right are mirror images of eachother. If you want a good example look at Stalin's Bolsheviks and Hitler's Nazis. Their end goals and ideals were very different but how they went about getting there was more or less the same. Only differences were because Russia was, compared to Germany, a bass-ackwards country.

who go from one extreme to the other because the world won't conform to their psychological need and demand for ideological perfection.

"who go from one extreme to the other because the world won't conform to their pschological (sic) need and demand for ideological perfection.

Maybe it is because the "world won't conform to their pschological (sic) need and demand for ideological perfection" Or maybe...no, you are right! look at some of the posts here! Those who don't "conform to their pschological (sic) need and demand for ideological perfection immediately yell: " OFF WITH THEIR HEAD!"

How so very accurate! Especially, "The right and the left are on constant guard for political heresy and correctness. They loathe the perceived heretic in their midst more than their political adversary." If you don't toe the party line you can't be progressively independent, you must be a DLC'er or a troll who violently crumbles at slightest provocation.

It is fascinating why some think "we" never win. It would be because they can't see the forest for the trees! They'd rather have a Rethug (anti-war...so s/he says) in office, than a Democrat, who supports other "liberal" causes, but is supposedly a "loyal subject to another country."

OH WAIT! Let's all go third party! Even though, our country hasn't firmly established a third party, they still love to pretend they are voting "conscience," rather than reality. (Three words: Perot and Nader!) Perhaps, we will eventually become a country that can handle more than more than one party, but until then..."eyes on the prize!"

about ideological purity. It's a valid point. But again, as I said above the entire discussion is horseshit because the main difference is that one of these two extremes controls the corridors of power in this country and has to some degree for a very long time. So calling them mirror images is a straw man argument to begin with.

...shouldn't we "clean our own house" first?

You are right...the discussion you present is "horseshit" because it also relies on the misconception we have a "liberal" media (or at least unbiased)! :rofl:

Extremism is always wrong...no matter the side.

You're saying that the call for ideological purity is bad, and that you don't want people running to third parties, but but in the same breath you say that we should "clean house". I'm far from an extremist in any sense of the word. But that's the problem. The moderate wing of the republican party recognizes the far right and extremist wing as still being an essential compoenent of their party and they are given a voice by the political establishment of the republican party. There's just no such comparison on the left. Are their left wing extremists? Yes. But I would submit that none of them are members of the democratic party and I would say that definitely none of them are given audiences with and voices within the democratic party establishment.

By "clean house," I mean to get our "ducks in a row," not necessarily throw anyone out. You point to the very reason the Rethugs hand us our ass so often: "The moderate wing of the republican party recognizes the far right and extremist wing as still being an essential component of their party and they are given a voice by the political establishment of the republican party." However, the "extremists" in our party do more damage than the right, on many occasions. The real left extremists are not part of the democratic party. They sometimes pretend to be democrats, but usually do nothing more than cause confusion and attack the party. They are purists. If one doesn't follow them "lock and step," then they are the ones to scream about moderates and other members of the party. They are also the ones who often bring their own "dogs" to a fight that has NOTHING to do with what is going on.

if you ignore what the policies of the Left and the Right are.

I clicked on "About the Bull Moose".
Does "sponsored by" mean he's getting paid by the DLC?

"The Bull Moose is an unofficial blog sponsored by the Democratic Leadership Council."

http://www.bullmooseblog.com/2004/10/about-bull-moose.html

Thursday, October 21, 2004

About the Bull Moose

The Bull Moose is an unofficial blog sponsored by the http://www.ndol.org/">Democratic Leadership Council. Although the Bull Moose has a deep affinity for the http://www.newdonkey.com/">New Donkey, he is an independent in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party of 1912.

The Bull Moose advocates a progressive politics of national greatness that promotes a strong national defense, economic justice, political reform and national service. The Moose hopes that Democrats, Republicans and Independents who share this vision will join together to forge a new politics that defies the current partisan polarization.

The Moose will often vent, kvetch, rant, rage and complain about the events of the day. Hopefully, he will also occasionally amuse.

Finally, the Moose closes with words from the master, T.R. -

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

"Citizenship in a Republic," Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
-- Posted at 9:01 AM | Link to this post | Email this post

Look at our Junior Joe McCarthy Club here...they spend all day chanting "Are you now, or have you ever been a DLC sympathizer?" They draw up enemies lists and smear anyone they dislike or who criticizes them.

They're no more "progressive" or "liberal" than they are mint-flavored.

You said you would send it when my check cleared.

:bounce:

with you for once MrBenchly.

who trashed Howard Dean to no end because he dared oppose the war in Iraq and actually was proud of doing so?

The DLC isn't exactly the welcome wagon either.

(n/t)

It is smearing people you disagree with, not by attacking their position, but by calling them names. It's easy to smear people; and a good tactic when you can't attack their position.

They are both populated by those who Eric Hoffer described as true believers who inhabit a cozy world of political certainty. The right and the left are on constant guard for political heresy and correctness. They loathe the perceived heretic in their midst more than their political adversary.

So, I guess my position on national health insurance doesn't really matter. What's important is whether or not I truly believe; and if I do, then I can be dismissed as an extremist.

the extreme right is racist, sexist, homophobic, anit-poor - there is no WAY you can equate that bunch of fascist assholes to people who care about things other than themselves

My views haven't changed much over the years. I used to be considered moderate or center by anyone who knew me. Now, I'm left, leftwing, far left etc.. But still, my views haven't changed much over the years. So tell me so I can understand. If my views have not changed much over the years, how come people call me something different than they used to?

Today I learned that even Joe Lieberman, he is leading the Progressive charge!

Are last weeks Left-wing Ultra Liberals this weeks Commie's?

Let me get check my December 2005 edition of Republican Lexicon Trend magazine.

how hypocritical of the DLC to accuse the liberals of that when they spend a good chunk of their time criticizing their fellow DEMS when, for example, they speak out against the war on Iraq. BOTH sides do it. after all, the whole point of the formation of the DLC was to purge the DEM party of people they think were too extremist left so they could attract the bubba vote and get some of that coporate campaign money. i think the pot is calling the kettle black here.

You heard a DLC member...or even just someone who supports some of their ideas say they would not vote for a fellow Democrat.....

Now compare that to the number of times you hear "progressives" on this board say they will not vote for a DLC member under any circumstance...

If you look at it honestly you will see which is the more intolerant

DLC types tell fellow democrats to shut up when they criticise republican policies?

Not often...nowhere near the amount I hear the opposite.

from the DLC, I don't hear democratic unity, I clearly hear shut up.

Why in the world do you and MrBenchwarmer worry more about nobodies on DU attacking fellow Dems than you do about DLCers on the Hill attacking fellow Dems? Your priorities seem askewed.

about how the "activist wing" is ruining the party.

You should remember when Lieberman said Dean was "living in a spiderhole of denial" because he didn't think the caputre of Saddam made us safer.

The very purpose of the DLC is to lessen the Party's reliance on "interest groups", translation: marginalize the progressives.

This is a struggle in which the hands of the DLC are not clean either...

And by "their own," I mean the liberal base of the party, the anti-war, progressive, environmentally conscious types (like me). And these guys (the DLC) hold some power. Not as much as the GOP, but they're power brokers, they've got funding, they're huge and can affect people's lives, and they choose to use that power slag Dean, McKinney, MoveOn, etc., ie. the heroes of the liberal base.

The liberal base then comes to places like DU, an obscure political website, and bitches about how they have no representation within the party.

And there's equivalency there?!

I have to say, in the real world, I see damn littl eindication that there's any sort of feud...

The DLC's Christine Gregoire gave the official Democratic address of the week not so long ago...

Here's a luncheon at which Dean, Clinton and Stabenow appeared...if they stabbed each other with steak knives iI failed to hear about it....

Here's a resource for any Democratic candidate on the DLC website...no membership is required.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=139

Since when is Cynthia McKinney a "hero"? She and her dad spouted anti-Semitic gibberish when she lost the primary a few years ago, after she ran around her district hand in hand with Louis Farrakhan.

And MoveON is pretty far from "heroes" to me. Especially after their "we bought it" remarks.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253638

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:dP5D-Jvi7o4J:www.davidsirota.com/2004/12/attack-of-dlc.html+DLC+criticizes+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253472&kaid=124&subid=307

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253638

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=900056&contentid=251690

Those are just a few examples of the DLC going after members of the Dem party base, whether by mischaracterizing the actions of John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi, or by dragging the old stereotype of the "un-patriotic" liberal out of the grave for another kicking. If someone on DU engages in a turnabout, there's relatively litlle harm done, since we don't have much power, individulally, as posters. But the DLC does have power, money,m and influence, and the fact that they choose to use those resources attacking their voting base strikes me as sad. I'll vote for people like that (you'll never catch ME saying that I won't vote for a moderate Dem), but it still makes me shake my head.

And I never said "feud" or "steak knives" in my post.

So at

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253472&kaid=124&subid=307

The blistering attack you're moaning about is...

"The left's unease with patriotism is rooted in a 1960s narrative of American arrogance and abuse of power. For many liberals who came of age during the protests against the Vietnam War, writes leftish commentator Todd Gitlin, "the most powerful public emotion of our lives was rejecting patriotism." As he and other honest liberals have acknowledged, the excesses of protest politics still haunt liberalism today and complicate Democratic efforts to develop a coherent stance toward American power and the use of force. "???

Pardon me while I laugh my ass off.

incredibly unpleasant.

Where does the word "blistering" appear in my post? I'm "moaning?" Wow.

:shrug:

Funny we don't see you criticizing folks who, say, compare the DLC to Hitler or to cancer.....

behind it?

Nuff said.

Good luck with the attitude transplant. I hope it takes.

Heck, I'm pretty much a centrist, but trying to engage MrBenchwarmer in any sort of conversation is damn near impossible. All you get is "{snicker}" and "purists" amid references to statements you never made. Worst of all, his messages veer in a hundred different directions that don't make a lick of a sense. You can't even call most of his postings "replies" since the relationship between his postings and anything to which he is replying is typically tenuous, even non-existent at times.

In my almost three years on DU, I have yet to put ANYBODY on ignore until today. That's actually a pretty good ratio.

But that's me; the glass is always half full and all that stuff.

not your personal heroes, who i'm sure are rather different.

How've you been? Haven't seen you around for a while.

i don't have the time or credit rating these days to pump out crazy amounts of political propaganda, trying to finish my Bush-delayed epic black and white garage band film. I just added Bonzo Dog Band's Neil Innes to it, ranting about the record industry. When its rendering or i'm trying to avoid editing, I pop in here and wake myself up with some good old fashioned bickering.

Sorry you had to be caught in the middle of this idiocy today.

You got Neil Innes?! The man's one of my, uh, personal heroes, even if the liberal base doesn't embrace him (snicker) :eyes:

The "liberal base" is sitting around admiring an antisemite who runs around with Louis Farrakahn? News to me...but then I actually AM a liberal.

The mocking quotes make my eyes glaze over. Have fun with the inclusiveness.

but not in polite company.

as if the "extreme" isn't a heretical position from the perspective of the so-called "moderates"! What fucking hypocrisy. As if bullmoose's screed isn't itself "infected with a Tourettes like rage." The greatest lie of the "moderates" that they stand at the center of polarities. There are no extremes. There is no spectrum. The spatial metaphor is a fucking lie. All positions compete equally. The position with the most power pretends to be the "center," pretends to have no position but the most "obvious one," or one of "compromise." It's a lie.

than this thread....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2316000

they get KILLED by the far right.

this is a FACT.

JFK
Malcom X
MLK
RFK

when grover norquist is assassinated, i'll listen to this argument.

Bullshit!

this emotion is needed for change, otherwise society would stay fixed in a possibly fatal manner. What if a society becomes comfortable with a perceived middle that is in truth not the middle. What if the people are dumbed down by those in power controlling the press and accept a falsehood as truth sending them on a collision course with the rest of the planet?

Also I find it ironic that Moose's icon Teddy Roosevelt was very strident breaking off from the Republicans and forming his own party. It was Teddy that accused Woodrow Wilson of basically being a coward and not taking us in to World War I sooner than he did. It was Teddy who took the progressive argument that the trusts or monopolies of his day had become too powerful and should be broken up, a position of the progressives today.

Personally as a progressive leaning moderate, or moderate leaning progressive (I am not sure which) I hope we are successful in Iraq, but not for Bush's sake. I wish success for the Iraqis and the entire Middle East in obtaining democracy, and for our troops. I believe sometimes bad men can do good things and vice versa, however this does not excuse the fact, that the bad should be held accountable for their misdeeds. Iraq is a war based on a multitude of lies to the American People and as such Bush failed in his responsibility to represent the American People and he should be held accountable.

but only among certain segments of the far left.

There are lefty freepers who only seem to hear half the story, just the same as there are righty freepers who also have reading comprehension issue. I've seen folks smeared by both. I've seen the barest evidence stitched together like a Frankenstein monster by both.

One of the reasons I stand in the middle is so I can keep my eye on both.

freaking wacko. Can you imagine Ann Coulter as president? How about Amy Goodman?

czech your sef b4 you wreck your sef

as a wacko? What is your basis for saying that?

extremely Skewed and biased information, from Ann, from Amy. Sorry, but I am smart enough not to believe either of them, at least a lot of what they both say. I have listened to Democracy Now many times.

For examples of skewed and biased information (and plain weirdness) of Ann, see the video clips www.crooksandliars.com.

You know where to find stuff on Amy Goodman; www.democracynow.org/index.shtml

the Eco-terrorist coverage. The big bad Government is harassing the poor innocent eco-terrorists. Don't mention that they set fires causing millions in damage. See any bias there? Amy's agenda is to make the government look bad. (AS if they need any more help).

it's just that you don't like it when Democracy Now points out just how bad the government is.

One way in which the government is bad is that they try to redefine crimes that previously were not considered to be terrorism, as terrorism - which gives the bad government cause to take away the Civil Rights (imprison without trial and without access to a lawyer - only thanks to laws created by the same bad government; the Patriot Act) of people who until recently were not considered to be terrorist.

Arson and trespassing is plenty of legal ground to indict these environmental activists, there's no need to label them as terrorists.

The bad government is creating terrorist where there are none - it is as though this government -wants- there to be more terrorists, and if it can't find any they will redefine other criminals as terrorists.

When you call environmental activists "terrorists", you are buying into that redefinition by this bad government.

I don't like it when Democracy Now points out just how bad the government is, I would say rather I don't find her message all that believable. Anyone with an AGENDA, like Amy, Ann or Faux news I do not place much belief in.


As for the eco-terrorist term, I did not make it up and got the info off of the DN website. I'd have to agree, this term could only giv the GUV more teeth to prosecute people.

When you call environmental activists "activists", you are downplaying the seroius nature of there crimes.

The ones who hide their agenda usually do so because it can't stand the light of day.

and to compare her to Ann Coulter?

why else would he let himself interviewed by her?
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/22/148258&mode=thread&tid=25

Sure he got upset because Amy asks tough questions, unlike the mainstream media.

I doubt she would want the job, but I would enthusiastically support any such attempt.

ya think someone would know better than to post that kind of bull shite here .. (sheesh!)

is more of a mirror of the far right.

I see the polarity; I don't see the left and right as mirror images, though. I see the 2 major political parties as mirror images, and I see their members in the same light as they reflect their parties.

I've never seen issues themselves as a one-side-or-the-other proposition; a whole position on the issue has to acknowledge and include both. They shouldn't be divorced:

Rights and responsibilities

choice and responsibilities

Individual liberty and accountability

Group liberty and accountability

the needs of the individual and the needs of the whole

Freedom and security

Freedom of expression and freedom from uninvited rants

I don't think issues come in one-view-solves-all black/white literal form, and I think that including all views to address the whole is the way to end the "us vs them" wars.

It is the powers that be, and the parties, churches, and other organizations that gather power for them, that create the mirrors.

The "conservative" right is revolutionary. Reagan's winning strategy was to adopt the antigovernmental rhetoric of the sixties counterculture in an argument for increased corporate control. The "sides" are similar in that they are both radical in their rhetoric; the "moderate" Democrats are really the conservative party, in that they want to maintain the status quo for as long as possible. The difference is that the radical left in America is utterly irrelevant, and the radical right is winning.