Are Democrats right-wing?

[Big Abraham]

The Democrats are only right-wing if you ignore social issues, immigration, and welfare issues.

OP specified establishment Democrats, most of whom do not broadly support a welfare state, the most minimal of which includes a national insurance program.

Also, loosening immigration laws isn't a left-wing policy, either. It's a neoliberal one, as the need for cheap labor is fulfilled with less restrictive borders and the "free flow of capital and labor." It's why, historically, most unions and participants in the labor movement wanted a more restrictive immigration platform, which, in that context, is no right-wing measure.

Xenophobic.

I support loose immigration restrictions because I think people have the right to immigrate where they like.

Your assertion that "if the unions support it, it must be left-wing" is not founded in reality.

Horseshoe theory gains more traction every day.

So do the Waltons.

And white supremacists oppose immigration because they hate brown people, what's your point?

I do not share a belief in white supremacy in common with white supremacists, but you do share a belief in neoliberalism and voting for Democrats in common with the Walton family.

[Ferguson97]

The Democrats are only right-wing if you ignore social issues, immigration, and welfare issues.

OP specified establishment Democrats, most of whom do not broadly support a welfare state, the most minimal of which includes a national insurance program.

Also, loosening immigration laws isn't a left-wing policy, either. It's a neoliberal one, as the need for cheap labor is fulfilled with less restrictive borders and the "free flow of capital and labor." It's why, historically, most unions and participants in the labor movement wanted a more restrictive immigration platform, which, in that context, is no right-wing measure.

Xenophobic.

I support loose immigration restrictions because I think people have the right to immigrate where they like.

Your assertion that "if the unions support it, it must be left-wing" is not founded in reality.

Horseshoe theory gains more traction every day.

So do the Waltons.

And white supremacists oppose immigration because they hate brown people, what's your point?

I do not share a belief in white supremacy in common with white supremacists, but you do share a belief in neoliberalism and voting for Democrats in common with the Walton family.

I'm not a neoliberal

[DS0816]

Yes.

Following are examples:

• Bill Clinton: NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act

• Barack Obama: Affordable Care Act and taking the nation from two to seven wars

• Joe Biden: Cheerleader for the war in Iraq who also attacked party members in Congress who opposed that war; generally, Biden is a war monger

All three are also owned by Wall Street.

None of them are politically on the left.

So, there is no way to honestly answer this question without noting these examples and having to reach the conclusion that the Democrats—in their current form—are right wing.

[Ferguson97]

Yes.

Following are examples:

• Bill Clinton: NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act

• Barack Obama: Affordable Care Act and taking the nation from two to seven wars

• Joe Biden: Cheerleader for the war in Iraq who also attacked party members in Congress who opposed that war; generally, Biden is a war monger

All three are also owned by Wall Street.

None of them are politically on the left.

So, there is no way to honestly answer this question without noting these examples and having to reach the conclusion that the Democrats—in their current form—are right wing.

Calling NAFTA and the ACA "right-wing" is brain worms.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Yes.

Following are examples:

• Bill Clinton: NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act

• Barack Obama: Affordable Care Act and taking the nation from two to seven wars

• Joe Biden: Cheerleader for the war in Iraq who also attacked party members in Congress who opposed that war; generally, Biden is a war monger

All three are also owned by Wall Street.

None of them are politically on the left.

So, there is no way to honestly answer this question without noting these examples and having to reach the conclusion that the Democrats—in their current form—are right wing.

Calling NAFTA and the ACA "right-wing" is brain worms.

Republicans voted overwhelmingly for NAFTA while Democrats were divided on it. Clinton, being the triangulator that he is, sided with the Republicans.

[KaiserDave]

Yes.

Following are examples:

• Bill Clinton: NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act

• Barack Obama: Affordable Care Act and taking the nation from two to seven wars

• Joe Biden: Cheerleader for the war in Iraq who also attacked party members in Congress who opposed that war; generally, Biden is a war monger

All three are also owned by Wall Street.

None of them are politically on the left.

So, there is no way to honestly answer this question without noting these examples and having to reach the conclusion that the Democrats—in their current form—are right wing.

Calling NAFTA and the ACA "right-wing" is brain worms.

Please try and make a serious case is to why NAFTA is left wing

[AGA]

The Democrats are only right-wing if you ignore social issues, immigration, and welfare issues.

OP specified establishment Democrats, most of whom do not broadly support a welfare state, the most minimal of which includes a national insurance program.

Also, loosening immigration laws isn't a left-wing policy, either. It's a neoliberal one, as the need for cheap labor is fulfilled with less restrictive borders and the "free flow of capital and labor." It's why, historically, most unions and participants in the labor movement wanted a more restrictive immigration platform, which, in that context, is no right-wing measure.

Xenophobic.

I support loose immigration restrictions because I think people have the right to immigrate where they like.

Your assertion that "if the unions support it, it must be left-wing" is not founded in reality.

Horseshoe theory gains more traction every day.

Loose immigration restrictions is right-wing in terms of economics at the very least.

[Ferguson97]

The Democrats are only right-wing if you ignore social issues, immigration, and welfare issues.

OP specified establishment Democrats, most of whom do not broadly support a welfare state, the most minimal of which includes a national insurance program.

Also, loosening immigration laws isn't a left-wing policy, either. It's a neoliberal one, as the need for cheap labor is fulfilled with less restrictive borders and the "free flow of capital and labor." It's why, historically, most unions and participants in the labor movement wanted a more restrictive immigration platform, which, in that context, is no right-wing measure.

Xenophobic.

I support loose immigration restrictions because I think people have the right to immigrate where they like.

Your assertion that "if the unions support it, it must be left-wing" is not founded in reality.

Horseshoe theory gains more traction every day.

Loose immigration restrictions is right-wing in terms of economics at the very least.

Based on what?

From a social perspective - "stay with your own kind in your own country" is a reactionary belief.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Lately they've been worse than right-wing. They've been downright fascist.

[WD]

The Democrats are only right-wing if you ignore social issues, immigration, and welfare issues.

OP specified establishment Democrats, most of whom do not broadly support a welfare state, the most minimal of which includes a national insurance program.

Also, loosening immigration laws isn't a left-wing policy, either. It's a neoliberal one, as the need for cheap labor is fulfilled with less restrictive borders and the "free flow of capital and labor." It's why, historically, most unions and participants in the labor movement wanted a more restrictive immigration platform, which, in that context, is no right-wing measure.

Xenophobic.

I support loose immigration restrictions because I think people have the right to immigrate where they like.

Your assertion that "if the unions support it, it must be left-wing" is not founded in reality.

Horseshoe theory gains more traction every day.

Loose immigration restrictions is right-wing in terms of economics at the very least.

Based on what?

From a social perspective - "stay with your own kind in your own country" is a reactionary belief.

He said economics. Loose immigration restrictions, which no serious regulation,would lead to a massive influx of low skilled, cheap labor, which in turn would result in depressed wages for workers here. It would be a free for all, with companies hiring those who are willing to work for the lowest pay, with nothing to mediate or address this. The only ones who benefit are big business.

[AGA]

The Democrats are only right-wing if you ignore social issues, immigration, and welfare issues.

OP specified establishment Democrats, most of whom do not broadly support a welfare state, the most minimal of which includes a national insurance program.

Also, loosening immigration laws isn't a left-wing policy, either. It's a neoliberal one, as the need for cheap labor is fulfilled with less restrictive borders and the "free flow of capital and labor." It's why, historically, most unions and participants in the labor movement wanted a more restrictive immigration platform, which, in that context, is no right-wing measure.

Xenophobic.

I support loose immigration restrictions because I think people have the right to immigrate where they like.

Your assertion that "if the unions support it, it must be left-wing" is not founded in reality.

Horseshoe theory gains more traction every day.

Loose immigration restrictions is right-wing in terms of economics at the very least.

Based on what?

From a social perspective - "stay with your own kind in your own country" is a reactionary belief.

He said economics. Loose immigration restrictions, which no serious regulation,would lead to a massive influx of low skilled, cheap labor, which in turn would result in depressed wages for workers here. It would be a free for all, with companies hiring those who are willing to work for the lowest pay, with nothing to mediate or address this. The only ones who benefit are big business.

I was referring to economics, yes, but what you said has no empirical support.

[Ferguson97]

The Democrats are only right-wing if you ignore social issues, immigration, and welfare issues.

OP specified establishment Democrats, most of whom do not broadly support a welfare state, the most minimal of which includes a national insurance program.

Also, loosening immigration laws isn't a left-wing policy, either. It's a neoliberal one, as the need for cheap labor is fulfilled with less restrictive borders and the "free flow of capital and labor." It's why, historically, most unions and participants in the labor movement wanted a more restrictive immigration platform, which, in that context, is no right-wing measure.

Xenophobic.

I support loose immigration restrictions because I think people have the right to immigrate where they like.

Your assertion that "if the unions support it, it must be left-wing" is not founded in reality.

Horseshoe theory gains more traction every day.

Loose immigration restrictions is right-wing in terms of economics at the very least.

Based on what?

From a social perspective - "stay with your own kind in your own country" is a reactionary belief.

He said economics. Loose immigration restrictions, which no serious regulation,would lead to a massive influx of low skilled, cheap labor, which in turn would result in depressed wages for workers here. It would be a free for all, with companies hiring those who are willing to work for the lowest pay, with nothing to mediate or address this. The only ones who benefit are big business.

And you know, the immigrants...

[Former President tack50]

I was referring to economics, yes, but what you said has no empirical support.

And you know, the immigrants...

There have been lots of studies on the issue of immigration, the workforce and economics.

However the main conclusions seem to be that while immigration is a slight positive for the economy (and obviously for the immigrants themselves) it is a negative for the "native working class", whose jobs get taken over by immigrants earning less in many cases.

The (native) rich and priviledged, and even the upper middle class profit from immigration, but the (native) working class does not.

"Lump of Labour" might be a phallacy but there is some truth to the usual "immigrants taking our jobs!" line

I would also add that in my view, when unemployment is low if you artificially reduce the supply of labor by restricting immigration you will end up forcing companies to pay more for their employees, increasing wages and taking people out of poverty. Now, there are limits to this (Labor shortages can be a real thing) but the general principle is true.

Similarly, when unemployment is high, if immigrants take the jobs of those who are unemployed, it is harder to reduce unemployment. Similar principle to above applies.

TL;DR: Immigration is bad for the (native) working class, even when it is beneficial for the economy at-large

[Red Velvet]

Yes.

Following are examples:

• Bill Clinton: NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act

• Barack Obama: Affordable Care Act and taking the nation from two to seven wars

• Joe Biden: Cheerleader for the war in Iraq who also attacked party members in Congress who opposed that war; generally, Biden is a war monger

All three are also owned by Wall Street.

None of them are politically on the left.

So, there is no way to honestly answer this question without noting these examples and having to reach the conclusion that the Democrats—in their current form—are right wing.

Calling NAFTA and the ACA "right-wing" is brain worms.

The Left has always hated NAFTA, from the US left (see: Bernie) and the global left even more. The fact Trump occasionally has lined with the left on specific stuff doesn’t make left-wing stuff become far-right lol

Trump's Position On Trade Often Aligns With Left-Wing Economists:

https://www.npr.org/2016/07/01/484284763/trump-s-position-on-trade-often-aligns-with-left-wing-economists

[AGA]

I was referring to economics, yes, but what you said has no empirical support.

And you know, the immigrants...

There have been lots of studies on the issue of immigration, the workforce and economics.

However the main conclusions seem to be that while immigration is a slight positive for the economy (and obviously for the immigrants themselves) it is a negative for the "native working class", whose jobs get taken over by immigrants earning less in many cases.

The (native) rich and priviledged, and even the upper middle class profit from immigration, but the (native) working class does not.

"Lump of Labour" might be a phallacy but there is some truth to the usual "immigrants taking our jobs!" line

I would also add that in my view, when unemployment is low if you artificially reduce the supply of labor by restricting immigration you will end up forcing companies to pay more for their employees, increasing wages and taking people out of poverty. Now, there are limits to this (Labor shortages can be a real thing) but the general principle is true.

Similarly, when unemployment is high, if immigrants take the jobs of those who are unemployed, it is harder to reduce unemployment. Similar principle to above applies.

TL;DR: Immigration is bad for the (native) working class, even when it is beneficial for the economy at-large

Mind showing these studies?

[Ferguson97]

What makes a native-born American more deserving of a job than an immigrant?

[Former President tack50]

Mind showing these studies?

Here is a random example (granted centred on the UK but it should work and it's also the best formatted for people not used to read papers and studies)

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/

The study does find that there is little impact overall, but that whatever impact exists is disproportionally concentrated among natives that were already worst off, having the lower levels of education, income and employment; with the lower classes being more likely to lose than win out from immigration.

There is also this article, as well as other studies on the matter: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216/

Note, I am not saying immigration is negative for the economy at large; immigration is certainly a positive for the economy. The thesis I am stating is that the native working class is at best just as poor as it used to be, and at worst actually even worse off from immigration; with most of the benefits being concentrated on the upper and upper middle class.

[Former President tack50]

What makes a native-born American more deserving of a job than an immigrant?

I mean, if you believe open borders are a good policy, nothing, but at that point you may as well dissolve the US government, switch to a yellow avatar and become an anarcho-capitalist

Now seriously, I do think that employment should go mostly to native born citizens first; though ironically I would also be in favour of a system like Canada, which pretty much ensures the "best and brightest" are the ones to get into the country; prizing skilled immigration over unskilled one.

I can admit that restricting immigration is basically a protectionist policy, where it is negative for the economy overall, but positive for certain subsectors of it; subsectors taht can sometimes be strategic enough to deserve the special protection.

I am also not going to deny that immigration is unambiguously positive for the immigrants themselves. People do not move countries without a good reason to do so. However, reducing global poverty by increasing immigration is just a grain of sand in a huge desert; it doesn't do much in the grand scheme of things.

There is definitely a huge middle ground to be found between an "America First" super restrictive policy and literal open borders

[AGA]

Mind showing these studies?

Here is a random example (granted centred on the UK but it should work and it's also the best formatted for people not used to read papers and studies)

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/

The study does find that there is little impact overall, but that whatever impact exists is disproportionally concentrated among natives that were already worst off, having the lower levels of education, income and employment; with the lower classes being more likely to lose than win out from immigration.

There is also this article, as well as other studies on the matter: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216/

Note, I am not saying immigration is negative for the economy at large; immigration is certainly a positive for the economy. The thesis I am stating is that the native working class is at best just as poor as it used to be, and at worst actually even worse off from immigration; with most of the benefits being concentrated on the upper and upper middle class.

I suppose that could be case. Every study I have seen suggests no impact or a very small negative impact on the lowest income workers. Either way, it's a far cry from Western Democrat's description.

What makes a native-born American more deserving of a job than an immigrant?

This is a silly take; of course government policy should put the interests of its citizens above those of immigrants.

[WD]

What makes a native-born American more deserving of a job than an immigrant?

Is it not the responsibility of a government to put the interests and priorities of it’s citizens first?

[Ferguson97]

What makes a native-born American more deserving of a job than an immigrant?

Is it not the responsibility of a government to put the interests and priorities of it’s citizens first?

I would say it's inhabitants over its non-inhabitants, but I want getting citizenship to be as easy as getting a driver's license so it's a moot point.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

What makes a native-born American more deserving of a job than an immigrant?

Is it not the responsibility of a government to put the interests and priorities of it’s citizens first?

That's how it seems to work nowadays, yeah. Which, of course, can lead to suboptimal global outcomes.

[Alcibiades]

I see nothing left-wing about the belief that people should be left to suffer if they’re unlucky enough to have been born in a poorer country, without any opportunity too seek a better life in a wealthier nation.

[Xing]

Marx was right wing

In this country, no, but he’d definitely be considered center-right in Europe.

[mileslunn]

Not today.  In past there was a time where Democrats had a strong right wing.  Much of the southern wing up until the 60s was quite right wing while Republicans had some on left.  For a long time both parties had left and right wings and voting was more based on what group you belonged to and less ideology.  From 60s onwards and especially since 80s, parties became more aligned by ideology.  People like George Wallace or Strom Thurmond was most certainly on the political right even for the times.  But nowadays, Democrats don't have types like that.  They have some who are centrist, but on right is really stretching it.  Sure if you use other countries for comparisons, its probably true some Democrats would vote for center-right parties in other countries but that doesn't make the party that as a whole.  After all Jim Messina who helped Obama in both campaigns helped David Cameron in UK, but that has more to do with median voter in US is more right wing than median voter in UK so definition of right and left are different in respective countries.