So, American Left. Have you swung Right?

This board certainly looks like a proper left to me. A mix of self-avowed pragmatists, confused idealists (I'm one of them), total nay-sayers, total yay-sayers and people with issues who post only to appease and people with issues who post only to oppose.

But I perceive an increase in right wing ideology across the spectrum, not just here but in the UK where I'm from.

The "she was asking for it" defense of rape would never have appeared in a left wing discussion forum that I might have frequented a few years ago. Now it sits in various guises all over the leftosphere (not necessarily DU, thank goodness, at least not yet). And a new one appeared on this site not long ago, "she wasn't a virgin." I had never seen that before.

The Left of old knew that war was wrong, capitalism was wrong (although possibly unavoidable), discrimination was wrong, the death penalty was wrong, prison rape wasn't funny and human rights were paramount.

But now I see prison rape jokes, bizarre justifications for the continuation of useless warfare, posts preferring "personal responsibility" to collective responsibility, "I hope he burns in hell", and a whole load of stuff that sounds a lot like the English tabloids used to about 20 years ago.

So, this post is a question for you all, do you perceive that the Left has been dragged Right?

Has the insistent idiocy of the 8 years of the George Bush mess lead some of you to position yourselves further right to try and get a better hold on the ear of people more right than you, so that common ground might lead at least to a debate rather than a scream of "ME ME ME AND MY FUCKED UP RIGHT WING ISSUES" in your ears? And have you forgotten that's what you did?

Obviously this a very wibbly generalisation. I welcome criticism of it.

Those of us who actually had principles before have kept them, it's just that now a Democrat is in power we have become persona-non-grata with many Dems whose only desire that a politician with a D after their name be in power.

but I don't think that's due to ideology so much as fanboyism.

I don't think political ideology runs in a circle.

Hence their incessant vitriol, demands to "deal with it," and name-calling, etc

and some of them have joined ours. A few of them have discovered this site and, being Republican and wrong, have decided to set the left straight about a few things they find common sense and we find either appalling or laughable.

We need to remember that Eisenhower Republicans, the sensible ones, are decent human beings and that decent human beings are allowed to be wrong about things, even as we set them straight.

We can disagree without being disagreeable over most things. We need to alert the mods on the rest.

Voter registration statistics for my state clearly show the exodus of moderates and centrists from the GOP. Unfortunately many in the Democratic Party fail to grasp the other story it tells - Departure of moderates and centrists from their own party. The recent uptick is a result of angry over the abuses and excesses of the last Republican administration. The long-term trend shows both major parties bleeding members at a rapid pace. More and more people are recognizing that the far left and the far right are really two sides of the same place.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/15day-stwdsp-09/hist-reg-stats.pdf

I am convinced that troll activity has exploded on DU.

in a political spectrum that has swung wildly to the right. Guess where that puts it.

I think the reactionaries have just recently received a new set of pom-poms and feel the need to bounce around in the coldness of unreality. Perhaps it's to stay warm?

:shrug:

apologists for his stance on gay equal rights, on escalation of war, etc..
I remember debating rightwingers about the wars when Bush was in, and now Im on here doing it. oy.

Are less interested in policy than just forgetting about Bush. And I do mean forgetting, they want to just "move on" and ignore what he actually did, so luminous and throbbing has "monster Bush" become in their fertile imaginations that analysis and rejection of his appalling policies has slipped away to be replaced by an unspoken agreement to all just be grateful that he's gone.

I'm with you on this Mari333

As a number of people have mentioned the far left and far right converge and have pretty similar views about the left that actually gets elected and gets things done that improve people's lives.

When you add to the mix that the far left info sources that most Trots here at DU cite are actually owned by a corporate CEO who plays at being a Trot leader, you get lots of posts that have a far right slant that have a gloss of left rhetoric.

It must be incredibly embarrassing to realize you've been played and thought of as a "useful idiot" by a corporate CEO:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6560399&mesg_id=6561071

nice graphic

:thumbsup:

Maybe that's why my heart will never be in this party, although my vote has been for years.

and they are right wingers for sure. This place is not 'the left' it is an amalgam of many things and currently features many religionist and other bigots and faithy politicizers who do the personality dance that is right wing to the core. Many here are against equal rights for minorities they do not like or whom they think God has told them are inferior.
The left has not moved right, but the DNC sure has. It is currently purging liberals as fast as they can, along with teh gay they so despise.

Intelligent debate, but VERY passionate debate and in an age when facts are almost an endangered species at one time or another many of us have found ourselves on the wrong end of the contempt stick - both ends are wrong btw.

Also, I find a lot of people aren't as tolerant as they think they are. And many of us think grabbing our victories a piece at a time is ok while others have waited far too long for relief and want it ALL now. HOW to proceed is a big fight every day.

I personally think in THOSE cases where imperfect but well meaning DEMs find themselves at odds with each other is a good thing. We learn from each other and argue and often over time change our minds with enough cause.

I ALSO think it's good to have far left, centrist and former righties who are moving toward our center due to losing any sanity in their party.

Depending on the day and the issue, a lot of times to get a real solution it requires having imput from everyone and taking the best of each viewpoint and bringing it together.

Johnny One-Note.

I find it puzzling to say Capitalism is wrong when my Hero, Franklin
Delano Roosevelt saved Capitalism. Yes, Capitalism failed in
29. There was economic collapse around the world. Failure
of Capitalism. With his progrmas he brought the economy back and
saved Capitalism and winning WWII saved Democracy.

Capitalism is only a tool, an economic system. It can be used
for good or for ill--depends on the users. FDR taught us and
gave us the message. UNFETTERED Captialism is destructive.
Capitalism must be regulated. In every case of failure you
find the Economic Fundamentalism of GOP the culprit. DeRegulation
and letting the "market work its will" will bring the system
down every time. Wise but not overbearing regulation makes
the market work for everyone. It is too bad some in our party
want to drive a stake through the heart of FDR Message.

No one would consider me on the right. I refuse to be called
a Centrist (no core principles and values).

Second, could it be that some just go by Cultural Values to
define Liberal. GOD, Guns Gays and Abortion.
I believe Economics is mega important. If you have no
decent livelihood, what can you really do about the
Cultural Issues except whine.

Unfortunately a large number on the left-in-power in the UK abandoned this idea so as to appeal to a small number of people in the Home Counties.

That DNC memo saying the tea-baggers were siding with the terrorists. That was right out of the Rovian playbook. I had to read it a couple times, because I couldn't believe a national organization would put out that kind of rhetoric. Lone political jerks, sure, but the national party? And then to see it defended so ardently after we had such a big, big problem with the Republican use of such rhetoric for eight years.

People become what they hate, and I think the partisan rancor has gone way off the rails over the last eight years. People feel justified in saying whatever they please because, hey, it's the enemy.

There was a thread the other day about the horrible things Freepers were saying about Mary Cheney's kid, and someone replied with a paste of a post from a DUer who expressed similar nasty sentiments. That about said it all to me.

It was similar during the campaign with Sarah Palin's kids. I loathe Palin's politics. Long may she reign on some remote Pacific island. But man, the way people went after her kids was completely appalling. The one thing that showed me who Rush Limbaugh truly was, all of his awful politics aside, is how he attacked Chelsea Clinton. For an adult to say that about an adolescent girl was to see an utter void inside that person. And then dozens of people here proved they were no better. What the hell?

I'm not sure if it's Right vs. Left as much as it's compassionate humans vs. partisan jerks without conscience. I think the 2000 election and the last eight years of political hell we've endured has seriously embittered a lot of people, filled them with fury and hatred. While that may be understandable to some degree, it still doesn't make it right.

I'm a liberal. I don't want to be a hateful right-winger, and I don't like being around people who act like them. But, here we are. Every day almost, there are posts explaining why this person we hate is secretly gay, why this female politician is a bitch and a whore, why liberals trying to adhere to their principles in a centrist world are secretly freepers, etc. etc. etc.

That's the thing about power. Once someone has it, their true character will out. We're seeing a lot of that right now, and too much of it is shocking. Or not, depending on your level of cynicism.

If you don't believe in anything, then why be angry about anything?

Is it really just re-channeled sour grapes? I hesitate to use that term, but if people are lashing out at whomsoever looks like they could carry the lightning bolt so as to rid themselves of frustration with Bush politics...

One of the things that really struck me yesterday was how so many posters insisted they were incredibly happy about the Nobel Prize, ecstatic, over the moon . . . while simultaneously posting with all kinds of anger, bile, and unchecked fury at anyone who didn't share that happiness. I kept thinking, "If you're so happy right now, where is all this hatred coming from and why are you spending so much time on it?"

It's a bit like that old warning against revenge. You may have it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will make you feel better. In fact, it may make things worse when you find yourself filled with anger and hatred and no longer have a viable outlet for it. All of that has to go somewhere. There is no event that will salve that level of rage. It has to be a self-conscious process.

I think, for many of us, we didn't get the kind of release we thought we were going to have with the President's election. Our motives are different for each of us, but it seems a common theme in the anger that drives a lot of this heated discourse. I may be wrong in these assessments, but a few examples of what I mean.

I think many African-Americans felt Obama's election would change racial dynamics a little bit. Not fix anything - we are far too racially scarred a nation for anything but a multi-generational change - but there was at least a sense of being able to look at the world and think "We're arriving. We're getting there. This country just might be living up to its many broken promises." Instead, racist elements in various quarters became even worse. It denied that release, that happiness.

Many LGBTers, after enduring an open constitutional assault in the previous administration, felt that things might finally move in our favor. We'd get some forward momentum, we could see daylight. Then there was Warren and DOMA briefs and delays. There was no promised release. Many feel worse than ever. It isn't mere disappointment, it's the denial of the political endorphins that we anticipated. I'm not an angry person as a rule, but when I think about the administration's approach to LGBT issues, I feel my blood pressure instantly rise. I loathed Bush, but I don't know that I felt this level of anger towards him about gay issues. Maybe because I expected it of him and did not of this administration. Maybe because things were supposed to be more fair and now things feel less.

A lot of progressives on a lot of issues are also experiencing that kind of emotional whiplash. From civil liberties to the wars to the financial industry to health care. They thought in electing Obama they were approaching the summit after a long journey, only to suddenly find there was an entire other Mt. Everest to be yet scaled. It isn't about getting everything they want right this very second, but about the kind of world they would transition into once this President was in office. Results would take time, but many people, and I would include myself here, felt the nature of the journey would substantially change more than it has. I think many people feel they're struggling harder than ever when they knew the promise of things getting a little bit easier.

And so, no relief when it was expected. All that anger is still there and must go somewhere. So it goes wherever available, wherever there is perceived opposition, wherever there is even the barest hint of someone blocking the perceived path to feeling that relief. Republicans, Democrats, left, right. Doesn't matter. Any target that immediately presents itself is a valid one.

All anyone can really do is be conscious of it, try to actively work pass it, try to check themselves when they're lashing out. Not easy, and I know I certainly don't always succeed in it. But the only alternative to that is to shrink into a hateful, bitter, resentful individual who is no good to anyone at all and certainly no good to themselves.

(Er, totally didn't mean to ramble like that).

All very clearly put and exactly what I was worried about.

They thought in electing Obama they were approaching the summit after a long journey, only to suddenly find there was an entire other Mt. Everest to be yet scaled. It isn't about getting everything they want right this very second, but about the kind of world they would transition into once this President was in office. Results would take time, but many people, and I would include myself here, felt the nature of the journey would substantially change more than it has. I think many people feel they're struggling harder than ever when they knew the promise of things getting a little bit easier.

This rings very true and I wonder if everyone has done this level of self-examination.

Thoughtful post, thank you.

:thumbsup:

I'm not shocked,which DOES say something about my level of cynicism.

I'm not shocked, but I am truly disgusted. Because, cynical as I am, I'm also an idealist, and I want people to live up to the ideals they've said they support. When ideals become political capital, it sickens me.

I'm not yet ready to give up my ideals in favor of becoming a partisan warrior. But hey, one man's virtue is another's weakness.

Still, there are some lines I just won't cross. Once they're transversed, it becomes less about political victory and more about what you're doing to yourself in order to achieve it.

A "win" isn't a win if you have to lose to achieve it.

Get over it.

And, Pete Seeger aside, the Red-baiting 1950s pretty well killed off anything that might have even remotely resembled a cohesive Leftist movement in the U.S. The social agitations of the 60s did not succeed in reviving a true Left on a national scale.

No, all we've had for the past half dozen decades or so is a species of social liberalism, with no true Leftist political and economic philosophy framing a larger argument -- a social liberalism that has utterly failed to question the underlying assumptions of the capitalist status quo.

When Rev. King attempted to expand the Civil Rights movement into an examination of the influence of capitalism, imperialism, and warmonging in the larger questions of social justice, many of his fellow civil rights leaders objected. Once he was assassinated and silenced, the rest were more than happy to let such questions drop.

The feminist movement contented itself with improving the position of women within the existing corporate economic system, rather than broadly (so to speak) challenge the very legitimacy of the system itself.

The anti-war movement drifted away once we were out of Vietnam, leaving the debate about the entire raison d'etre for our imperial military machine confined to an easily ignored and marginalized few like Chomsky and Zinn.

Since social liberalism is in no way any sort of coherent movement, interpretations of events depend upon each person's individual predilictions -- that's why there's such a variety of viewpoints expressed.

Once it's understood that an "American Left" does not exist, it's not so puzzling to observe how social liberals can be all over the map in responses to cultural, political and economic questions.

sw

It looks to me like you're talking about the absence of core principle. In the absence of core principle to which America's current "left" can adhere, how can any ground be gained? How can any goal be aspired to?

Beats me. I've been here since 2001. The only agreed upon "goal aspired to" was getting Bush out of office.

The biggest problem I see is that most putative "leftists" on DU are interested solely in electoral politics, and therefore allow themselves to be co-opted into supporting the Democratic party. When it comes to actual on-the-street organizing of a true Leftist movement -- which would of necessity utterly reject the Democratic party as being but one head of the two-headed plutocracy that runs our country for its benefit -- the main cohort of social liberals are quite MIA.

sw

I hesitate to opine.

It's not as if it would take a lot of effort to write down a Liberal Principia. I could do it. You could do it.

At the moment I have the fear that people would just get pissed off with it and I suspect a large proportion would simply say "don't tell me what to think"...

So most American liberals aren't REALLY left-wingers according to you purists? Whatever.

Not that one can never and doesn't sometimes inform the other, but certainly not incontrovertably.

Over my 8 years on DU I've seen countless liberals defending capitalism, surely you can't deny this. Taking the liberal side of Culture War issues does not a leftist make.

I'm a left-libertarian. I reject both Marxism and Free Market Fundamentalism. I am skeptical of both an overly-powerful state and overly-powerful corporations. I support a market economy and Free Enterprise, that does not mean I support Corporatism, which is the antithesis of a true market economy and real Free Enterprise.

And economic leftism is ultimately the only kind of Left that counts.

They seem to think that being on the Left is mainly a matter of which consumer products one favors. Fair trade certified organic coffee or Folgers? Mac or PC? Lands End or WalMart?

Some participants in this thread seem to fit into that category.

and the only way to organize a society?

Humbug! Who ever heard of such a thing? Now bring me my organic fair trade certified double decaf mocha soy latte frappuccino--I need to calm my nerves after hearing such foolishness!

Something I discussed in this thread I made a while back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8388877



The current political alignment:

I'm just don't think that we're talking about the same thing here. None of my posts on this thread have been about left/right. I have only concerned myself with the question of what people mean when they use the term "left" to describe themselves.

I don't think you're wrong, I simply think we are addressing different arguments. I read your old thread, btw -- interesting.

sw

...are worthless. To the Marxists my support for a market economy and skepticism towards government makes me a "right-wing market fetishist". To the Right-Libertarians and Conservatives my skepticism towards Big Business, my pro-labor position, and my support for a reasonable degree of economic regulation makes me a "totalitarian Communist"

On that chart I would go in the "Radical" category: Skeptical of authority and have no strong bias for simple vs. precise rules.

I've heard it many times and it makes no sense to me at all.

of our political system.

Does it rest on any actual structure or is it just the same old rubbish about all systems leading inevitably to authoritatianism (which is neither right nor left)? I've seen it so often I wondered if it might have some substance.

Realizing they're obviously much closer ideologically to the RW, and the RW's approach, they have a powerful need of denying that, and what better way than shift the focus by imputing what they themselves more fully represent to those who they, due to stark worldview differences, perceive as 'enemies.'

The thing is, language gives a person away. And I tend to find that it's primarily moderates and rightward types who seem to prefer huge doses of sneer, hostility and name-calling within their online interactions with those they deem "crazy" - which is typically a very long list with those types, if ya follow.

But this expression is abused in America since the political spectrum is so tilted that what is considered extreme in America is barely moderate in the larger context of the debate. They saying "les extremes se touchent" originally referred to the fact that the monarchic despotism and abuse of power was indistinguishable from the terreur that followed it. In that sense, the extremes are the same: when terror is used as the source of power then it is farcical to assign relevance to the ideology that drives the terror. So "les extremes se touchent" also proved true for the Nazis vs. Stalinists (or the Stalinist Leninists before them): Speaking of these regimes in terms of "left" and "right" is confusing because essentially they were the same in the important, power-giving methods they used. The method so overshadowed the driving ideology that the method became the ideology, and in that sense, Nazis and Stalinists were/are the same.

Considering that, it is farcical for a centrist to suggest that what he calls "extreme" on the left is essentially the same as the "extreme" on the right. Maybe that counts for groups that propose a violent overthrow of the government (which both sides have, but the right pretty much dominates the market for potential insurgencies) but it makes no sense whatsoever applied to Social Democrats and Socialists or whatever the nom de jour is for true progressive ideologies. I read the misuse of that argument on here almost on a daily basis and it has only reinforced my impression that the american democrats in general have no clue about the history of leftist thought or about it's finer distinctions. Most centrists talk about Marx or Socialism in a way that strongly reminds me of the uninformed talking points version I always get from right wingers. This is not to say that Marx or Socialism is my preferred answer, but it does bring me to the conclusion that the above post about there "being no american left" is true to the most part, polemical as it is.

Nothing much to it, really.

I see many Democrats, who were not really "left" to begin with, who perhaps swung left in response to GWB, shifting quickly to the right to stay in step with Obama.

I still know that war is wrong, capitalism is wrong, discrimination is wrong, the death penalty is wrong, prison rape isn't funny, and human rights are paramount.

It's a little lonely over here these days.

Thanks to all posters for such an engaging bunch of reads, as a newbie, I can't speak to any shifts of sentiment. What I have noticed is that too often, debate gets turned into put downs. I try to have respect for the venue and its participants, still learning what that is, I guess.

The corporatocracy has total control of both political parties who provide them a well conditioned, poorly educated, under informed public to boot around until its parted from its promise. Hale the pursuit of profit and damn the antiquated notion that perpetual servitude can't be beneficial, at least to the right someones anyway.

The creation of a divisive atmosphere can be made to serve as a component of a means to that end and the money machine that both schools of political thought lead back to wins, we are not relevant enough to even warrant consideration as collateral damage. A viable future for a public that's valued can't run effectively if the intent of its design and agenda is to benefit a small percentage.

- and agenda is to benefit a small percentage."

This observation should be the first thing n the first page of the Liberal Principia.

I've nicked it from Newton's "Principia Mathematica" - principles of mathematics. It's flowery sounding and probably in the wrong tense... There isn't a Liberal Principia. There should be, I think...

It's hard to find a place to really fit in. I never felt like I was that different from most of the folks here, lately I've felt very different.

It would be better if people didn't find it necessary to tell other people to leave it they don't like it. That's really sad, but I see people tell other people that all day here.

It really makes you sad if you were someone who fell in love with DU.

It was definitely a very different place than this one.

The old DU was a place where one could get not only some emotional support but also a real education. The new one is a place where one comes to gawk at wrecks.

There is a large contingent here that thinks raping a passed out drunk woman is OK, and that raping a 13yo girl is OK as long as you are a "great artist".

There is no shift to the Right on DU. It's just that the ideological purists try to redefine definitions for purposes of sophistry, like calling Obama "Center-Right", which is total, utter crap.

I simply couldn't believe what I was reading. Not even my hard right relatives would have countenanced the "defenses" that some put up during that ghastly mess.

(right) and Wilsonian(Left)policies than many here would like to admit.

"The Left of old knew that war was wrong", however Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, Johnson, and Clinton did not get the memo. Carter did, but 1 example is hardly supporting evidence that the current left is out of step with the old left.

My prediction -Obama's handling of the wars will likely be little different than bush's.


The US is mostly centrist in terms of the broad range of the political spectrum and thank God for that. We do not have hardcore fascists, communists, theocrats, monarchists, or anarchists in anything but very tiny minorities.

The US does seem to sliding towards an ever more centralized government, greater collective responsibility, and less individual responsibility. But is this left or right? Was Otto von Bismarck of the left? My point is I really don't care if the chains being forged are left or right inspired, it makes more sense to evaluate policies with a view to whether they will they improve things or not, not whether some polysci professer would characterize them as left or right.

The health care reform legislation is a good case in point. The proposals in Congress could be viewed as left wing or right wing. Since the government is considering forcing us to purchase health plans from corporations, that could properly be viewed as fascistic and so some here go apeshit over being forced to support a private enterprise. If a public option is offered and we are forced under threat of penalty/imprisonment to purchase either private or government insurance, that could be either right or left. If the plans in Congress are scrapped for a single payer systme in which all are forced into a gov run system that would be viewed as left, but the underlying element of force and drift towards centralized power and less individual autonomy would not change.

The issues the OP mentioned are more about morality than left or right politics. We could move way to the right politically and become the most evil bastards the world has known, or we could move hard left and become the most evil bastards the world has known.

social ideas like extreme pacificism, collective responsibility (no responsibility, in other words), and other shitty ideas. Progressivism/Liberalism/Socialism are not moral codes, they are political ideologies. They are about POLICY, not morality in the individual sense.

If so, you and I have reached the end of this discussion with your first comment.

You might want to tell me what you thought I meant by collective responsibility (I have no idea what YOU think it means)

I have noticed the same right-wing leanings with regard to these issues too. I have on occasion after reading posts been left to wonder WTF am I on the DU or some other right-wing or right leaning board?

In many cases I think it has more to do with the attitude of tribalism. These are the people who'll blindly support "my team" with little to no regard on how it may conflict with liberal interests. In addition it is my feeling that the root of the problem here is "corporatism." We all know that both parties are severally inflicted with corporate lobbyist buying Washington. They get away with it on our side because of the 'my-team'ers' with their blind support.

Unfortunately there's also some folks (thankfully not many) who I can't see any distinction between them and the attitudes we see from right-wingers. They exhibit little to no respect for constructive criticism and go straight to the nuclear option sounding indistinguishable from right-wingers.

Mostly though the DU is predominately filled with well informed and articulate liberals and I am thankful of that, and why I mostly just read instead of post. Plus I am usually a bit brash in how I'll type things out unless it happens to be on a subject I have a lot of experience with.


Peace,
Xicano

At least none with any power to affect things.

To be Left ya gotta oppose Capitalism, no ifs, ands or buts.

The Democratic Party is the left wing of Capitalism, but it is not the Left.

In a real unpleasant way, too. Like the women should just do their dishes while they do the revolution, or some shit, and be sexually available without strings of any kind, which explains the existence of right wing women - at least they think they will get security out of it while pretending to right wing men that they agree they are inferior. I think the existence of right wing women is fascinating and have read like two books about it! (Can you believe there are that many?)

None of the features you list as characterizing the Left have ever been as universal as you suggest.

With memories of reading DU before posting, which I did a lot, perhaps, but I remain convinced that there's a lot of new right wing blood on the board and now in the heads of a lot of people who used to be a little more left. There's also a lot more baiting going on than there used to be.

Sometimes the good old days really were better.

it didn't used to be like this around here. Not by a long shot.

Blind devotion to Obama who leans right-not left-has pulled many on the left to the right and it's been alarming to witness this past year and a half.


I remember when there were peace protests on a regular basis and there were lots of enthusiastic and supportive posts about them here on DU



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6531334


I remember when Cindy Sheehan was revered for her stand against * and his wars at his ranch in Texas and Duers were ecstatic.




I remember when Code Pink stood up to Condi sleeza Rice by holding up a bloody hand in her face and DUers cheered.






Looks like those days are gone.

Now all we see are people around here cheering on Obama's Peace prize when he has NOT championed peace, but instead has escalated war and death.


War is Peace on DU and you'd better like it or you will be TSed!!! :puke:

and try making a bit more sense.

Most people who opposed the Iraq War, myself included, are not pacifists.

I don't see your position clearly, Odin, and to be honest it doesn't look like a straight answer to the hypothesis you're opposing. You provide yourself as a counterexample but that doesn't in itself constitute a contradiction, from what's written it could be that both you and earth mom are describing two concurrent and non-exclusive phenomena.

... and by calling out I mean nasty, hateful people who will use any topic possible, moon, flu vaccines, nobel award, etc, as a vehicle to rally the hate-spew-verbiage-lynchings against the unseemly "loony" Left. It's funny, too, if you've noticed, there are a handful of such posters who choose user names that sound very anti-establishment, even quasi-'conspiratorial' sounding, yet they're the most staunch, vicious haters who post LOUDLY against any who dare question any official doctrine.

That's what I ask myself all the time these days.

I use to consider myself moderate. But I'm pretty left wing these days. As far as DU's goes I don't think personal views have gone to the right. I think there are more DU'ers that have come over to the democratic camp that use to vote republican or independent and their views tend to be more to the right. Our tent just keeps getting bigger mainly due to the decline of the GOP.

I support single-payer, gay marriage, sensible gun control, socialized education, higher taxes on the wealthy, am pro-union, pro legalization of marijuana, oppose the death penalty and think in most cases that war is wrong. But I look at the people arguing on the left here and compared to them I'm practically a Republican.

However, I also realize that most of these problems/goals are not immediately fixable/achievable and I'd rather move incrementally towards solving them instead of arguing for ideological purity. I learned a hard lesson in 2000 what ideological purity accomplishes.

Honestly, if a corporatist/centrist/DLC/"pejorative term of the day for a pragmatist president" is having so much trouble getting his agenda passed, what hope would a Kucinich have?

So call me a moderate, a centrist, a DINO, a Blue Dog, but I know that the game won't be won overnight and if we truly want to achieve these goals we need to change the minds and the hearts of the country. It may take baby steps, but they are in the right direction (or at least I think so).

This was during my heady days of political discussions as a student. This term cropped up in gay rights debates a lot, people would argue that a step by step process would be more likely to succeed, the counterexample given was that in Ireland they just did away with all legislation discriminating against gay people in one go and it worked.

I don't know if it would work in other battles, though. Some things obviously have to be done carefully.

maybe even more.

because the GOP has decided to commit political cleansing and rid itself of those with less than universal hate or too much empathy or intelligence. A lot of former 'Pubs are now Dems.
Personally, I used to be a firebreather back in the '70's, and I'm older, but still very, very left. I am NOT what used to be called "deoctrinaire", because I dislike rigid thinking and I find too many parallels between that segment of the left and the extreme right.


mark

They say time heals all wounds. While I'm convinced that is the case for many, for others that time never comes. Or the moment; perhaps only one of few opportunities to repair it, moves past with little else but the thunderous sweep of a second hand's tic-toc tic-toc and it too is gone. It's too painful, too large to close by itself and it won't stop oozing.

Your mentioning the effects of the bush admin does not come forward without appreciations. Toxic people, which I believe the RW to be; are able to convey or impose their grievously hurtful tactics from within a shared psychosis upon all they come in contact with - like a virus, the membrane splits spilling out serrated barbs infecting otherwise dis-effected people, or even good people.

Affections for RW tactics have been idolized by the LW since awakening to discover that sort of relentless demeaning actually works. It shaves points, it shapes then sets opinions in motion. It releases a hidden, unrequited pining for a romance with goose-stepping cohesion and resolve and for being able to think one's self belonging to a special class; if not the teacher of it. Finding some of those tactics acceptable to emulate for our purposes was endorsed even here.

And so now, some of them they are ours.

Some here display great ease with pointing to others they disagree with as being so close to RW agendas they could shake hands. Emulating RW tactics, they've proclaimed themselves LW 'ethnic purifiers' of impure LW thoughts. In so doing, however; and truly when you think about it just how, as a function of having embraced toxic RW tactics; but how are LW emulators of RW oppressions able to comprehend: that their agendas are now viewed as similar in the ways they apply them to, with, and on behalf of an unspoken admiration for Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage in their efforts to censor, demean, insult and chide people into submission.

For me a disgusting display but a display nonetheless.

There's a 'syndrome' working itself through the system, I've heard others refer to it as battered lefty syndrome. If these LW purveyors of RW toxins weren't already the oppressors of our common dreams, especially in a world where a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse; then perhaps it is what it is.

If time won't, can't, or refuses to heal all wounds then maybe time will consider returning all systems to default. I'd settle for that.

Ugh. That's bleak, and familiar.

Thank you for an extremely well written and powerful post.