Decline of the Left?

[cris01us]

I think the measuring stick has moved, and what you call “Left” today is far more progressive than what would have been defined as such say 40 or even 20 years ago.  Why is this?  Quite simply, progress has been made, and therefore continued “progress” requires a further shift to the left. Or more directly – the Left has won and continues to win.  When current victories stall or fail people see it as a decline in the Left, or even when a party fractures.  In fact that is not true, the yard stick has simply moved from where it was or you’re using a new one.  For instance the Left leaning policies that people support now have a wider group of supporters than they used to.  i.e. in America how many folks on the right are trying, in a serious way, to modify social security?  Only 20 years ago the discussion was revolving around partial privatization of it, and now…? Nothing, no one dares mention it.  When holding all three parts of the American government to effectively change the ACA, as promised back in 2010, what was the GOP response? Nothing, and now they dare not.  It has to broad of support now – why because people have accepted it, it has become the norm.  The policy is won, the yard stick has moved.

Far from decline, the Left has become ascendant. After 62 years of congressional power in America, the left became (by today’s standards) not so easily distinguished from the right on many issues.  Once out of power, once faced with defeat and policies that were not of their choosing (Bush tax cuts to name one) the Left has been reenergized in America.  It is the power struggle over the past 24 years (since Gingrich was Speaker I would put at) that we have seen this shift.  All the while, progress has been made, and continues to be.  Marriage legislation, drug legalization, the abridgment of the 2A in a number of states (at least in terms of MORE 2A legislation being passed), energy transitions, just to name a few issues.  In almost every category of policy issues the victories have been stacking up for the Left not the Right.  The only three exceptions I find worth note are taxes, “right to work laws”, and abortion issues.  In these two areas the GOP has made some, if only temporary, headway and one of those only within a few states.  In the case of “right to work” laws this is short sighted, because the Left will shift to the federal level to counter.  What’s more the Right has had to shift its’ stances and agendas to the Left in order to make any lasting progress (think of the appeal message circa 2000 vs now). Otherwise you would have seen GOP immigration legislation, and you wouldn’t have seen Bush’s No Child Left behind but rather robust school voucher legislation. The “radical right-wing” appeals you do hear are 1) done to garner headlines, 2) are aimed at the base 3) are always softened by the majority of GOP candidates. They should not be taken as the overall norm.

The idea that because unions or worker organizations have become weaker, thus so to has the Left, just doesn’t play out.  Instead, it is because those traditional institutions have become weaker we find the increased collectivist call from the Left (more federal programs).  For instance, instead of turning to unions to be the brokers for personal security and leverage the Left has skipped right ahead to the federal government.  This is why you see the rise in calls for free college tuition, free healthcare, federally mandated wage increases ($15/hr.), and so forth.  Where before there were institutions able to provide some of these things (at least the ends if not the means), we now find those institutions gone or no longer able to do so. However, we see the demand hasn’t gone away.  As a result those on the Left seek to use the levers of the federal government to replace who the provider is.  What alternative do they have, because the end goal is still the same.  Where before there were unions and pensions and healthcare provided by a steady job, now there is market fluctuation, an erosion of certainty, job instability, and so forth. 

I hope no one misconstrues the point I am attempting (but probably have failed) to make.  None of this is to be taken as derisive.  I’ve rather hoped to aim for a more historical and external view, trying to be as succinct and yet pointed as possible on a topic that frankly chapters have undoubtedly been written on.

[cris01us]

The left has been winning the culture war for decades?

In a word....Yes.

[cris01us]

Like.... when does the left not win the culture war? Progressives fought to end slavery, women's right to vote, etc. while conservatives fought against all of those things because they're inherently opposed to change.

I would say that the "born-again Christian" movements in the 80s and 90s showed the GOP that they could have an impact on culture.  Nancy Reagan's "Just say no" campaign, as well as "The war on drugs".  All these things that were championed by the GOP, were accepted by the main stream, served as a pretext for the GOP to continue to fight to influence American culture. 

[cris01us]

Of course, you're right, but I mean long term. As we've seen in this past decade gay rights have become the norm when in 2008, 2004, and 2012 ballot measures passed in several states banning gay marriage. The acceptance of cannabis use throughout society, so you're right as in they were once accepted as main stream, but slowly the left is winning another issue in the culture war. 

You are correct.  The Right has been consistently losing the culture war since around 2000.  George W. might have been an evangelical and softly pushed those ideas, but he didn't have any wins to show for it.  The problem is, is that there is a significant faction in the GOP who still wants to push their social agenda and they don't realize that that ship sailed about 16 years ago, and it gets weaker every year.  They, unfortunately still have enough money to have a voice at the table and provide many of the "safe seats" the party depends on. 

They should opt to have a clear and narrow message on the culture war front.  They should pick a handful of policies, have a clear message for each, and drop the charade on the rest.  Trying to take the moral high ground on every front has only under cut their overall goal.  It's vague, aimless, and ill defined - and it's to easily misconstrued by the other side.  If I could craft this for them I would say, make a clear delineation on where you want to go with Roe/Wade (nationwide and with all state legislation together; and not all the way to repeal), draw a clear line/policy stance that firms up Hobby Lobby and wedding cake judicial decisions, pick one more segment (nuclear family (not traditional)) - drop everything else.  Then again I am Libertarian, so they probably aren't interested in hearing from me.