-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Liberal GAF, I have a bone to pick with you. (Pretty long rant)
- Thread starter Who
- Start date
- Status
Epsilon-delta
Banned
Abinash117
Member
Op, you are not saying anything new . Many times there is a debate about these subjects and many times people people agree that there is a problem. You can go to many polls and you can find out that on both sides many already agree that there is a problem. Many popular people and influential groups already raised awareness about this stuff.
The issue is either ideological were people ignore facts or they do acknowledge it, but it is not on their priority list.
Yes. This is precisely what needs to be done. Anarchism is the only solution. Not as an ideology enclosed and restricted by its own definition, but as a living process of conscious behavior as a sort of critical theory of society which "seeks to confront the social, historical, and ideological forces and structures that produce and constrain it" and challenges the domination of people by the various aggregates of power and authority in the world. Anarchism in the manner which Chomsky describes it:
gutter_trash
Banned
back during Reagan and Bush 41 era, the electoral college favored them
modern Republicans have driven the car off the crazy cliff and have become to far out to be electable among moderates.
The days of Contectut spawn Republicans like Bush 41 winning New Hampshire over and over aga
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
They have, how so? I mean that honestly, their policies haven't really changed they are just more widely known because of media, net, social media, video cameras everywhere, etc.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
The post mostly sounds like the kind of inspiring but empty content that most politicians say. We have to fix the system. We have to work with others. We have to find a better way. We need to think outside the box. We can never give in on important fights. We need to compromise.
Of the things I noticed:
Note that I've actually lived in countries with other health-care systems and I'm totally happy to discuss them comparatively.
This seems totally confused. Corporate personhood is about a 100-year old concept and predates either of the modern parties (if we assume a party system realignment after the progressive era, around the new deal era, and another one with the Southern Strategy and post-Nixon realignment of the South).
I think you may be talking about Citizens United, which was decided under a majority-Republican appointed Supreme Court along the party lines of their appointment. Parties do not "control" the Supreme Court, they make appointments to it.
Your point that the Democratic party is co-opted by corporate interests is of course true, but it's important to be right when you're ranting.
Tens of thousands of people rioting -> hundreds of thousands more protesting over the last year -> people actively contacting their congressperson, voting for ballot initiatives, donating money to candidates they support, working in politics -> "don't fool yourself into thinking you are doing anything of great value" ~ a post on an internet forum
Fast-track way to be branded an asshole that no one wants to talk to, but also seems to contradict the fact that the first half of your post is shitting on do-nothing internet liberals who just spend time arguing about stuff instead of doing things.
I've found in life that almost invariably if someone tells a story when they are describing someone else reacting incredulously, or especially raising their eyebrows, the context of the story is that the storyteller is trying to make themselves sound smart, impactful, and surprising, and the other people sound like rubes who had never thought about anything before. ... that is also how this excerpt appears to come off. Lots of your peers and colleagues have thought about this. The presumption should be to listen to them, rather than tell them how to be.
After a post where you write off incremental change and progress on issues because of structural failures of the system, you switch to an argument about compromise, working together, and consensus. This is one of the reasons the post sounds like a politician's speech. Much of what you're saying is agreeable and fine, but it doesn't mesh, and it seems more designed to evoke a stirring reaction than an actual idea of what we're meant to be doing.
I really feel like you're talking to a straw-man. I find it hard to believe that the Hillary supporters you're pointing to wouldn't share your criticisms of the Democratic party, or your acknowledgment that structural change is required, or a sense of frustration about money in politics. No one seems to actually think the things you're ascribing to a large group of people.
Finally, sanity check note: You use "liberalism" here to mean left politics. That's sometimes how it is understood in the US popular media and vernacular. But it makes your post much more confusing for anyone outside the US, because "liberal" doesn't mean left-progressive at all and liberalism refers to specific historical thinkers and ideological positions that have almost nothing to do with what you're talking about. You might instead choose "left" or "progressive" for clarity.
Of the things I noticed:
You set it up so that expensive healthcare is a problem, but then identify fighting about health-care (or gay rights, or global warming) as trivial in light of structural problems.
If you're offering me the magical opportunity to choose between the ACA and something better, I'd pick something better. In the mean time my wife gets far better coverage than she would have, she saves about $2,000 a year, and an 8-figure number of Americans have access to care they didn't before. That's a win. Is it "unprecedented"? I don't really care about superlatives. It's better than the system that existed before.
Note that I've actually lived in countries with other health-care systems and I'm totally happy to discuss them comparatively.
This seems totally confused. Corporate personhood is about a 100-year old concept and predates either of the modern parties (if we assume a party system realignment after the progressive era, around the new deal era, and another one with the Southern Strategy and post-Nixon realignment of the South).
I think you may be talking about Citizens United, which was decided under a majority-Republican appointed Supreme Court along the party lines of their appointment. Parties do not "control" the Supreme Court, they make appointments to it.
Your point that the Democratic party is co-opted by corporate interests is of course true, but it's important to be right when you're ranting.
Tens of thousands of people rioting -> hundreds of thousands more protesting over the last year -> people actively contacting their congressperson, voting for ballot initiatives, donating money to candidates they support, working in politics -> "don't fool yourself into thinking you are doing anything of great value" ~ a post on an internet forum
Fast-track way to be branded an asshole that no one wants to talk to, but also seems to contradict the fact that the first half of your post is shitting on do-nothing internet liberals who just spend time arguing about stuff instead of doing things.
I've found in life that almost invariably if someone tells a story when they are describing someone else reacting incredulously, or especially raising their eyebrows, the context of the story is that the storyteller is trying to make themselves sound smart, impactful, and surprising, and the other people sound like rubes who had never thought about anything before. ... that is also how this excerpt appears to come off. Lots of your peers and colleagues have thought about this. The presumption should be to listen to them, rather than tell them how to be.
After a post where you write off incremental change and progress on issues because of structural failures of the system, you switch to an argument about compromise, working together, and consensus. This is one of the reasons the post sounds like a politician's speech. Much of what you're saying is agreeable and fine, but it doesn't mesh, and it seems more designed to evoke a stirring reaction than an actual idea of what we're meant to be doing.
I really feel like you're talking to a straw-man. I find it hard to believe that the Hillary supporters you're pointing to wouldn't share your criticisms of the Democratic party, or your acknowledgment that structural change is required, or a sense of frustration about money in politics. No one seems to actually think the things you're ascribing to a large group of people.
Finally, sanity check note: You use "liberalism" here to mean left politics. That's sometimes how it is understood in the US popular media and vernacular. But it makes your post much more confusing for anyone outside the US, because "liberal" doesn't mean left-progressive at all and liberalism refers to specific historical thinkers and ideological positions that have almost nothing to do with what you're talking about. You might instead choose "left" or "progressive" for clarity.
You can't really do a whole-hog approach. You need to compartmentalize battles and choose them selectively. There reason is you have a system that is bought into and refined over a few hundred years, it has the capability to do a lot of things a new system can't. So if you replaced the whole thing you'd lose a lot and people will rightly call that out in defense of it. Also, what you change needs proof that it's going to work and you can't do that without having implemented it. This is why change has to take change on a smaller scale. A few states implement changes and when the system doesn't come crashing down it makes others likely to try as well until you reach the point we can globally agree it works.
The reason easy battles are picked it because they are winnable and winning gets you leverage. ACA isn't the endgame but it's a battle that could be one and so long as it shows it's working it gives us the ability to move forward. Sometimes you need the strength of your enemies because what you are fighting is a little more important.
As far as taking money out? I'm not sure there is a solution from the government side. Our system has a lot of flaws some systemic and some based on human nature that we can't easily rid ourselves of. Honestly though I think corporations are something to leverage. If they have the power then it's just a level of abstraction and you address it at that level instead. Pick whoever has your favorite side.
The reason easy battles are picked it because they are winnable and winning gets you leverage. ACA isn't the endgame but it's a battle that could be one and so long as it shows it's working it gives us the ability to move forward. Sometimes you need the strength of your enemies because what you are fighting is a little more important.
As far as taking money out? I'm not sure there is a solution from the government side. Our system has a lot of flaws some systemic and some based on human nature that we can't easily rid ourselves of. Honestly though I think corporations are something to leverage. If they have the power then it's just a level of abstraction and you address it at that level instead. Pick whoever has your favorite side.
I would argue this is a false security blanket used by liberals to make themselves feel warm and fuzzy inside while not having to go out of their way to try and actually change anything. The two party political system in America is the main culprit that no one wants to confront because it would take to much work and effort to change.
"Well vote third party!" Ok I do.
Then comes election time
"Why did you vote third party??!! It's a wasted vote! You are just playing into conservatives hands and hurting the liberal movement!!"
We had a point were Democrats controlled the majority of the power and guess what, they were still all passive aggressive and compromised the shit out of their ideals and for what? And good lord the excuses, even on GAF, piled up so high. "You just don't understand politics, it takes time. They are working to UHC, they will ratify it in the next year or two once ACA is passed, ACA is not just a ploy to get more people into a broken health system and more money into insurance companies pockets." It is beyond naive to believe both political parties aren't paid for and controlled by corporate interests. And the people in power to make those changes are the ones benefiting from it so have no reason at all to change the status quo. And with the general public easily manipulated by media it won't. The first step to breaking this system is getting rid of PAC's and corporate campaign funding but yea good luck with that.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I highly doubt a significant number of people thought the ACA would lead to UHC years before the ACA even came into force. If you're referring to people that view it as a historical stepping stone, they likely mean something more like continued incremental reforms will eventually lead to something resembling a universal coverage model over a long historical horizon.
I also think this reflects a total lack of knowledge about what "Democrats controlled the majority of the power" means. Passing bills is hard. It requires more than a numerical majority for a variety of structural reasons (avoiding majority party rolls, committee structure, filibuster). The Senate Democrats probably had 35-40 votes for some form of single-payer during the ACA debates. It's not obviously clear there would be a way, even in a third-party system, to cobble together enough votes to get a filibuster override for UHC. Even if the Democrats had a better, more engaged president that fought tooth and nail for UHC or nothing, I don't think you'd get to 60.
So it's a strategic choice about compromise versus fighting for it, and about how you juggle all the issues simultaneously.
This isn't "making excuses". It's literally a description of how things work. It sucks. I wish the US had UHC. I come from a country that does have UHC. It's a better, fairer model. My father had long-term health problems that would have cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe millions, in the US that cost him $0 in the country he was in. I am not a great fan of the Democratic party. But any country, no matter how competitive the electoral system, has structural constraints on action.
Version 3.0
Member
Baby steps. We can't even vote the destructive Republicans out, and you're calling for a total system revamp? Let's start with an attainable goal.
I don't disagree that we need a system revamp, or full-on replacement. Call a Constitutional Convention, I'll vote "yes" and encourage everyone I know to do the same. But spoiler alert: it isn't going to happen.
I don't disagree that we need a system revamp, or full-on replacement. Call a Constitutional Convention, I'll vote "yes" and encourage everyone I know to do the same. But spoiler alert: it isn't going to happen.
Who is busy. he's on first.
This would be a really bad idea. There are too many people asking for a constitutional convention on the OTHER side (to ban gay marriage, abortion, taxes, whatever), and there are no actual rules for a constitutional convention should one take place.
Literally anything could happen.
Manmademan
Member
Interesting that a lot of people here seem to think the US has a two party system. it really doesn't.
The democratic and republican "parties" operate much more like coalition governments that agree just enough on certain platforms to pass a bill once in a blue moon.
On the democratic side, compare the "blue dog" democrats of appalachia (though there are way less of these after 2010) to the progressives of the CA west coast. Compare the interests of black voters in the inner cities, hispanics in the southwest, and New England WASPs.
on the republican side, the establishment/tea party divide has been fierce and obvious for a long time- but you also have libertarians and evangelicals trying to get along under the "roof" of the same party, and they frequently disagree.
asking for a third party is useless- they would just end up caucusing with one party or the other in an attempt to actually pass something, which is exactly what happens when independents get elected to the house or senate.
If you want to actually change the platform- vote in primaries. It's the dead simplest way to get the party moving in the direction you support. Even the 'money!' argument falls apart here, since with a few rare exceptions, big money doesn't get dumped into house or senate primary races. This is how the tea party hijacked the republican party in 2010 and sent the republican establishment into a panic. They showed up at polls when no one else would.
But no, I suppose "burn it all down and start a third party! everyone is corrupt!" is just more entertaining.
C
Version 3.0
Member
Their policies have indeed changed. Or rather, they've cemented into a nearly unified whole, with the worst stance now being the party line on almost any issue you can name.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Which policies?
Version 3.0
Member
Good point. But had that been an option in 2008, I'd have jumped at it. Obama's election has riled up the worst elements of our country, though, and I'd hate to put much of anything to a vote when they're unified in hatred while too many more-or-less reasonable people are apathetic.
Very nice to read, but I need someone to define 'liberal' for me here.
As far as my understanding goes, liberal is more aligned with free market/laissez-faire economics, corporate business support and just right wing politics in general. "Liberal" is very conservative. This is what I was taught in British high school.
Margaret Thatcher, for example, was a true-liberal.
It sounds like this post is about socialism/left wing politics?
As far as my understanding goes, liberal is more aligned with free market/laissez-faire economics, corporate business support and just right wing politics in general. "Liberal" is very conservative. This is what I was taught in British high school.
Margaret Thatcher, for example, was a true-liberal.
It sounds like this post is about socialism/left wing politics?
Abinash117
Member
I think he is talking about mainstream liberals in USA which is against that.
Version 3.0
Member
Take your pick. Abortion, Health Care, Global Warming, Military Spending, Immigration, Gun Control, Welfare, etc. Once upon a time, the opinions of individual Republican politicians might vary on any of these issues, even into "left" stances on some. Now that's a lot less true, or at least on the surface and in actual voting it is.
Or, to put it simply: politicians toe the party line more than they used to. That's true of Democrats, too, to a lesser degree. But their party line isn't destructive, anti-factual or based in racism or bigotry.
Fenderputty
Banned
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
I'm sorry, we are talking about national politics. I haven't seen a mainstream Republican presidential candidate come out in 'favor' of anything on that list. Sure some candidate from a blue state looking to be elected as a republican might come out for X, but that isn't a national political position; it hasn't changed in over 20 years.
I don't think you are arguing against him.
It's not that the "two party" system would be hard to change, it's that it will not be changed without a revolution. The first past the post electoral college system encourages a bi-adversarial system. Neither of the major parties are going to vote to change this, nor will they, obviously, vote for a constitutional amendment to change this. Unless this is changed there will be no large 3rd party in the US, it will always devolve into a bi-adversarial system where one party is more liberal or conservative than the other and neither party, no matter what they are called or how they change, will want to change the voting system. So, you can forget about that.
This leaves us with picking the least bad option to make change which is getting more of the people in the party you most closely identify with into office and then pushing them toward your goals (one good way was already mentioned, primary votes).
Manmademan
Member
you haven't seen a mainstream republican candidate come out in favor of increased military spending? I'm pretty sure that's ALL the recent budget resolution was, mixed in with cuts to social programs.
but that aside, it's clear that's what he meant. On the republican end, they're all anti-abortion. they're all anti-climate change. they're all anti-welfare programs. they're all anti-obamacare.
there is no room for dissenting voices, you're either with the party line on this one, or your a RINO who will get primaried in the next election. This wasn't the case in the 1990s when bob dole was the party nominee.
Fallout-NL
Member
Yup.
You're right of course. But much of it is besides the point. We can hardly expect the OP to phrase some kind of perfect argument and I understand what he's getting at at least.
JinjoUnchained
Member
You're talking about economic liberalism, which one could equate with the "laissez faire" free market belief. Think Adam Smith, that's economic liberalism.
Political liberalism, at least in America, is completely different. American political liberalism is essentially the same as "left wing", favoring government intervention to correct both free market behavior and individual behavior. Honestly, the term "liberal" is an odd fit for the American Left. Certainly it's appropriate on social issues, where the Left has been more tolerant on civil rights and equality. But their economic policies completely contrast with the traditional meaning of the term "liberal". I've always thought that there must be a more consistent and descriptive term that they can adopt.
I just wanted to mention that I agree with you that modern liberals are guilty of "forsaking honest discourse for political correctness". Well, at least most of the young liberals nowadays are guilty of this. When I was in my early twenties it was common for liberals to have challenging, difficult discussions within our own groups. Now, for the sake of being P.C., such discussions are typically shut down before they can even begin - accused of being "insensitive" or "insulting". Yes, sometimes discussions are, and that's something modern liberals by and large don't seem to get.
The most common examples can be found on Twitter or popular discussion forums. Even a blue joke, humor of all things, can be seen as reason for an immediate blocking on Twitter or ban on a forum. Honest discussion of difficult subjects immediately leads to a majority group calling some cry of foul related to political correctness and/or offended sensibilities, and a circling of wagons (which again equate to blocks or bans).
Modern liberals, in many ways, have finally become the overly sensitive, exclusionary, humorless caricature that conservatives painted us as for decades.
The most common examples can be found on Twitter or popular discussion forums. Even a blue joke, humor of all things, can be seen as reason for an immediate blocking on Twitter or ban on a forum. Honest discussion of difficult subjects immediately leads to a majority group calling some cry of foul related to political correctness and/or offended sensibilities, and a circling of wagons (which again equate to blocks or bans).
Modern liberals, in many ways, have finally become the overly sensitive, exclusionary, humorless caricature that conservatives painted us as for decades.
Third Strike
Member
Progressives, maybe?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
America's definition of "liberal" is extremely different from the European version. In America "liberal" means left-leaning (for us) in general.
This American usage greatly annoyed many economists and philosophers.
TheLaughingStock
Member
I agree with some of your points. A couple disagreements. I don't think it's accurate to say the economy is completely backwards or unsustainable given the economy should be able to coordinate and be productive enough to face challenges decades from now like health costs, security, retirement, and so on. In addition, I don't think treasury securities or the gov't crediting your bank account is frivolous activity. Things would go south for sure if they didn't use those tools to influence the banking system here.
birthday-suit
Banned
I'm checking out the Green Party. Pretty sure I'm not voting for Hilary.
As a black person, there's no way I can ever vote Republican. But I agree with the OP, in that the Democrats aren't the "good guys."
I don't see them speaking out against poilce brutality. Trans Pacific Pact.
As a black person, there's no way I can ever vote Republican. But I agree with the OP, in that the Democrats aren't the "good guys."
I don't see them speaking out against poilce brutality. Trans Pacific Pact.
retrofool1961
Neo Member
lot's of good comments.
I would vote for the OP solely because it is his idea and thought structure, not from a committee of 'yes men', spin doctors, or a highly paid dog wagger.
Way back when, I was going to vote for Ross P. Up until he listened to the spin doctors. That shit went south quick.
I just can't trust anyone that uses a teleprompter.
And I can Not trust Hilary. Period. The end.
I would vote for the OP solely because it is his idea and thought structure, not from a committee of 'yes men', spin doctors, or a highly paid dog wagger.
Way back when, I was going to vote for Ross P. Up until he listened to the spin doctors. That shit went south quick.
I just can't trust anyone that uses a teleprompter.
And I can Not trust Hilary. Period. The end.
Warm Machine
Member
The biggest failure with libereralism is that it assumes people are good and reasonable. Often times they are not which is why being a conservative is so popular.
"Liberals" have become what they've loathed.
All citizens agree that we want a good country, and a good quality of life. The party system inherently prevents us from agreeing on things, simple as that. All the while, the parties are best friends. Their lobbied interests are identical.
I don't consider myself liberal anymore, its like how I stopped considering myself atheist, when the "god killed my dog" type ran rampant. Look at the dumbass liberals over the vaccination thing. Or gentrification and ruining local economies.
our party system shouldn't be the 2 most lobbied, wealthy candidates. We can all agree on that.
Now lets get these assholes out of our government. The system is poisoned. We just need a citizen party.
1. Healthcare
2. Infrastructure
3. Jobs
4. Healthcare
5. Try to mend middle east affairs as best we can to return that $ from the military to our country.
6. We have to allow citizens to marry in the United states. Its a human right.
7. Everyone gets to keep their guns
8. Climate change. We have to prepare for it, whatever caused it. We have to make a better world for our children.
9. Return civil rights and liberties back. No more fucking spying on all of us for the wars you create(gov)
10. Cap money given to politicans or donated. Maybe some sort of public service so that people become the politicians, like jury duty.
I mean, I think thats a good start.
Or, we can keep the bullshit going of "herp derp conservatives, lol", "Hilary is the devil!!!" blah blah blah. Fast forward the clock, and we will be in the same position as citizens we've been in. Reduced rights, rampant corruption, money that none of us get to see, yet we always foot the bill for the governments bullshit, etc. We've seen this exact shit play out over and over. There is nothing different about this next election, than the past 32 years of my life. Its a circus, a god damned wrestling match.
Vince wins no matter what. Savvy?
All citizens agree that we want a good country, and a good quality of life. The party system inherently prevents us from agreeing on things, simple as that. All the while, the parties are best friends. Their lobbied interests are identical.
I don't consider myself liberal anymore, its like how I stopped considering myself atheist, when the "god killed my dog" type ran rampant. Look at the dumbass liberals over the vaccination thing. Or gentrification and ruining local economies.
our party system shouldn't be the 2 most lobbied, wealthy candidates. We can all agree on that.
Now lets get these assholes out of our government. The system is poisoned. We just need a citizen party.
1. Healthcare
2. Infrastructure
3. Jobs
4. Healthcare
5. Try to mend middle east affairs as best we can to return that $ from the military to our country.
6. We have to allow citizens to marry in the United states. Its a human right.
7. Everyone gets to keep their guns
8. Climate change. We have to prepare for it, whatever caused it. We have to make a better world for our children.
9. Return civil rights and liberties back. No more fucking spying on all of us for the wars you create(gov)
10. Cap money given to politicans or donated. Maybe some sort of public service so that people become the politicians, like jury duty.
I mean, I think thats a good start.
Or, we can keep the bullshit going of "herp derp conservatives, lol", "Hilary is the devil!!!" blah blah blah. Fast forward the clock, and we will be in the same position as citizens we've been in. Reduced rights, rampant corruption, money that none of us get to see, yet we always foot the bill for the governments bullshit, etc. We've seen this exact shit play out over and over. There is nothing different about this next election, than the past 32 years of my life. Its a circus, a god damned wrestling match.
Vince wins no matter what. Savvy?
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
Any normal person understands personal responsibility and its value. They also understand that personal responsibility can be hard but people have to be kept to it. The conservative understanding of this concept is more of a buzzword. Anything and everything turns into pleading to personal responsibility in an attempt to seem pious and morally superior. It's completely fucking transparent, yet you talking about it like it's something unique to their perspective would almost have me believe you totally fell for it.
The government is made up of people. You put shitty people like Scott Walker, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann in it and you get one thing. You put people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and you get another. We have way more of the former types than the latter - way more - and that includes some Democrats who, perhaps while not as stupid nor evil as a Walker or Bachmann, are just as corrupt.
There are probably a handful of liberals in congress. If the likes of Grayson, Sanders, Warren and Franken dominated, we wouldn't constantly be talking about how shitty the system is.
Would a liberal-controlled Supreme Court have ruled that corporations are people?
Eighty Deuce
Banned
Don't worry, people on the right are also trying to stop Jeb Bush.
You have my support on pretty much everything you've stated.
I agree that Capitalism is a failed system but the bolded is not at all how I wish to come across.
The only responses I see in defense of the system is that "we have no choice, it's just the way we are." That to me only speaks to how helpless and defeaten the system has made us. Its not impossible to change but it can seem that way. I mentioned in my OP how now, more than ever, ordinary citizens have the power to organize and communicate at a level not possible before at any point in history. The reason why people make the decisions they do is because its too hard to attempt anything else, not because the system is unchangable, but because its easier to just play along with it. Modern day liberals, myself included are cowardly in this way. We know, deep down, that doing the things necessary to get rid of the system means we would have to give up much of the luxuries of modern life.
A poster mentioned earlier how he loves his Apple products, as do I love my Nintendo products. It would take a lot from the everyday citizen to help right the wrongs of the world, not by voting in the right candidates and supporting the right legislation, but by limiting our desire to buy new things and breaking free of the capitalistic social conditioning we were all brought up with (Americans) Its possible to change, at the end of the day the system relies solely on our participation in it to survive, it would just be difficult.
I'm not claiming to be the smarter than the millions of people that willingly play along with the system. I just want to see change. I don't know the exact answer but I'm confident that offering your support for established candidates and limiting your outrage exclusively to the opposing side will do nothing but allow the system to function as is.
Agreeing with a colleague that Democrats are better than Republicans only reaffirms both your beliefs and allows you to feel warm and fuzzy about the whole thing. Having more difficult conversations about how ineffective and corrupt the whole thing is will hopefully lead to more uncomfortable feelings, more confusion, and ultimately, I hope, more outrage focused on the root of the problems.
I don't see things changing, in a quick enough manner, going along with things the way they currently are. So you can continue supporting the system and dismissing people like me as "people who just think they're smarter than the rest of us" but I honestly don't think you are contributing to a better future... You're taking the easy way out conveniently provided to you.
I'm not perfect, I contribute to capitalism, I'm in chains as well. But hopefully, the more we talk about the chains, the more we acknowledge our helplessness, the more inspiration and courage we'll have to do the things necessary to break them. Instead, it seems the majority of us are victims of Stockholm Syndrome and have become far too content with the injustices and looming disasters that hover over us.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
Again, we start out talking about liberals but who are you describing when you talk about having the same lobbying interests? Sure as hell not liberals.
As for disagreeing: the party system is irrelevant. My issue is not with a party and the label exists strictly for convenience. My issue is with conservative values. We don't disagree because I call myself a liberal and they call themselves conservatives. We disagree because I think that a modern society should embrace communal, secular existence, universal health and education, protecting the environment, and a diplomatic foreign policy, and they think we should pray for rain, outlaw abortion, increase the war on drugs, teach abstinence, start more military conflicts abroad, then clutch our Bible and await the impending, second coming of Jesus.
I mean what are we even talking about here? EVERYTHING you listed is part of the standard, progressive agenda. Sure, things like guns are not a focus of that platform, but it is totally in line with letting people "keep their guns."
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I think you need to look a little past those responses, and look at the ones telling you why the system can't be changed at the moment. It's not just because people feel helpless and defeated, it's for practical reasons too.
Take your disenchantment with the ACA for not going far enough down the path of UHC for example. Suppose you have a Democratic President (for a hypothetical arguments sake, Hillary in 2016) who wants to enact that.
In order to change that, you'd need the Democrats who wanted to change it to control Congress, and not just that but likely have a super majority in the Senate, as they briefly did in Obama's first term. Let's put aside the Senate for now, and look at the challenge of controlling the House for the Democrats.
This is very difficult because of the way so many districts in the House are drawn. Specifically; by State governments in 33 states more often than not controlled by Republicans who gerrymander things to their favour (Democrats do this too of course, when it's in their favour).
So before you could really win the House back for the Democrats, you'd need to re-district large parts of the country, and you'd probably need most of those 33 states that typically vote Republican at the state level to vote Democrat to have that re-districting go in favour of the Democrats.
Now, the soonest this could be done of course is likely after the next census, which according to the Constitution occurs every 10 years, meaning the next opportunity for Democrats to control the House is probably post-2020, unless you want to pass a Constitutional amendment changing how often the Census is conducted I guess, or pass some other piece of legislation that states re-districting can occur earlier (though why would the GOP do this).
This isn't pessimism, it's practicality. There is not going to be a legislative sea change in the next Presidential cycle for the Democrats because of the way things are currently structured in one branch of government. Similarly, the GOP is going to find it very difficult to pass a legislative agenda as long as they don't control the Congress to the extent they can override the Presidential veto.
So we'll come now to why much of Liberal-GAF supports Hillary. Because they know everything I've written above. The big prize for her election would that be not a legislative agenda, but control of Supreme Court nominations, which would mean that the Supreme Court could be actually shifted to the left (where it really is not at the moment as you erroneously assert in your OP).
Those are really the only significant marbles there are to play for in terms of a Democratic Presidency in the next decade or so, and not backing an establishment candidate and voting Greens or Independent would simply jeopardise even that gain due to the way voting is conducted in the US (first past the post).
NinjaMouse
Member
Man, I always read these threads and want to participate, but I know I'm treading thin ice by doing it, but here goes.
I think this is a cycle that we all go through across our lives. While a lot of political views are a product of your environment and what you've been exposed to, the trend I've noticed, now that I'm in my late 30s is that you are basically born a liberal and grow into conservatism. I don't mean grow in an intellectual sense, so don't take it that way, please. I'm not saying it's only for kids, either, but at least in my experience, I now carry a different responsibility set and have seen things that have skewed me towards being a conservative. I remember being in college, running around ranting and raving about how fixed the system was and how screw we were if we didn't shake things up. Scribbling "vote for Nader!" all over campus, while trying to figure out why it was a big deal that Clinton got his dick sucked. I thought it was cool because he was a "dude", just like me. Everyone should be happy and healthy because they just should be. If I had Facebook or Twitter, I'm sure I'd have been all over some hashtag campaigns to save the world.
As I've aged, I'm seeing things a lot differently, especially now that I'm earning a paycheck, seeing where the money goes and seeing a lot of the other problems in the world. I've also gathered enough of my own problems that I've got to solve. There's a view of how things should be and there's a view of how things actually are. True equality simply can't exist. Corruption will always breed, even in the best of systems. Also, youth tends to bring impatience and the last thing the government is known for is rapid change.
I figure I'll draw the ire of some folks here by saying this and some of the liberal oldsters will tell me I'm wrong by saying this, and that's fine, I'm not willing to argue to change anyone's mind. I'll admit, I'm not well informed enough and for every liberal website someone throws at me, I can find a conservative site with a strong enough counterpoint, so the discussions just end up diluted.
The point I'm trying to make is its typically been young people with all the answers and old people with all the power, keeping things from changing. The takeaway is that those old people were young once, too.
Fight me, ban me for going against the grain, whatever is fine. I don't mean to attack anyone, I'm just sharing my own experience and views.
I think this is a cycle that we all go through across our lives. While a lot of political views are a product of your environment and what you've been exposed to, the trend I've noticed, now that I'm in my late 30s is that you are basically born a liberal and grow into conservatism. I don't mean grow in an intellectual sense, so don't take it that way, please. I'm not saying it's only for kids, either, but at least in my experience, I now carry a different responsibility set and have seen things that have skewed me towards being a conservative. I remember being in college, running around ranting and raving about how fixed the system was and how screw we were if we didn't shake things up. Scribbling "vote for Nader!" all over campus, while trying to figure out why it was a big deal that Clinton got his dick sucked. I thought it was cool because he was a "dude", just like me. Everyone should be happy and healthy because they just should be. If I had Facebook or Twitter, I'm sure I'd have been all over some hashtag campaigns to save the world.
As I've aged, I'm seeing things a lot differently, especially now that I'm earning a paycheck, seeing where the money goes and seeing a lot of the other problems in the world. I've also gathered enough of my own problems that I've got to solve. There's a view of how things should be and there's a view of how things actually are. True equality simply can't exist. Corruption will always breed, even in the best of systems. Also, youth tends to bring impatience and the last thing the government is known for is rapid change.
I figure I'll draw the ire of some folks here by saying this and some of the liberal oldsters will tell me I'm wrong by saying this, and that's fine, I'm not willing to argue to change anyone's mind. I'll admit, I'm not well informed enough and for every liberal website someone throws at me, I can find a conservative site with a strong enough counterpoint, so the discussions just end up diluted.
The point I'm trying to make is its typically been young people with all the answers and old people with all the power, keeping things from changing. The takeaway is that those old people were young once, too.
Fight me, ban me for going against the grain, whatever is fine. I don't mean to attack anyone, I'm just sharing my own experience and views.
- Status