The Left? Who are they?

[The Dowager Mod]

We do not exist.......Nothing to seehere.......

[Antonio the Sixth]

Does anyone here get sick of reading this silly term The left; as if in reality when two left-wingers approach each other in reality they are all chummy and agreeing, instead of being at each others throats - the Judean's people front, indeed.

So can we please stop referring to the left (and for the matter and being fair, the right). Only people who go OMG MUSLIMS!!11 or OMG BILL AYERS!!!111 should use it.

As all group of individuals, it's an intellectual construction. It doesn't exist per se, but refering to it makes sense.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

We do not exist.......Nothing to seehere.......

Wow, I woke up this morning, checked Atlas and learned, I don't exist

[12th Doctor]

I must say, this is possible the best title for a thread ever.

[Хahar 🤔]

Something that dead0man likes to talk about. A lot.

[dead0man]

Well I am a "right winger" and you know how we love our labels.  You guys on the other hand....

[opebo]

We do not exist.......Nothing to seehere.......

Wow, I woke up this morning, checked Atlas and learned, I don't exist

Makes one wonder how many people would really care - or even notice -  if one woke up not existing.

[angus]

Does anyone here get sick of reading this silly term The left; as if in reality when two left-wingers approach each other in reality they are all chummy and agreeing, instead of being at each others throats - the Judean's people front, indeed.

So can we please stop referring to the left (and for the matter and being fair, the right). Only people who go OMG MUSLIMS!!11 or OMG BILL AYERS!!!111 should use it.

The are, in Daniel Elazar's model of "political culture," the moralists.  (E.g., think of John Edwards' constant haranguing that "it is a moral imperative that we should provide health care to all citizens.")

The moralists are the left.  The individualists have, for most of my life, formed the right.  The traditionalists have, for most of my life, also been voting with the right.  It is a "rightist" coalition that Nixon and Reagan and Bush the Younger were able to capitalize upon.  Obama seems to have made some inroads with respect to the DNC's attempts to steal away some of that coalition.  His base remains, however, those moralists to which Elazar referred. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Does anyone here get sick of reading this silly term The left; as if in reality when two left-wingers approach each other in reality they are all chummy and agreeing, instead of being at each others throats - the Judean's people front, indeed.

So can we please stop referring to the left (and for the matter and being fair, the right). Only people who go OMG MUSLIMS!!11 or OMG BILL AYERS!!!111 should use it.

The are, in Daniel Elazar's model of "political culture," the moralists.  (E.g., think of John Edwards' constant haranguing that "it is a moral imperative that we should provide health care to all citizens.")

The moralists are the left.  The individualists have, for most of my life, formed the right.  The traditionalists have, for most of my life, also been voting with the right.  It is a "rightist" coalition that Nixon and Reagan and Bush the Younger were able to capitalize upon.  Obama seems to have made some inroads with respect to the DNC's attempts to steal away some of that coalition.  His base remains, however, those moralists to which Elazar referred. 

That's quite accurate actually. At least on the intellectual end of the spectrum anyway (which is what we are talking about).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Gully who has argued in the past that I'm a conservative (though he can't explain why beyond "I don't like him") is being his usual illogical, contradictory self by citing me as an example.

[muon2]

Aren't they a German political party?

[angus]

Aren't they a German political party?

Actually Germans do divide along somewhat logical lines.  They have a traditionalist party (CDU), a rightist party (FDP), a mainstream left party (SPD), a leftist party (The Left), a deluded cultish party similar to similarly-named parties in other countries (Greens), and a few others.  All of whom have seats in the Bundestag.

While "the left" certainly exists in US politics, we don't really have a formal leftist party in the congress like Germany does.  We have a coalition of the moralists and whatever traditionalists the Democrats can pick off to win seats.  Nor do we have an easily-identified, unadulterated right, since the Republicans are not pure individualists (they too must pick off enough traditionalists to win seats.)  The two-party system is an obvious consequence of the fact that a majority is required to secure the Executive branch (270 of 538 votes).  And that's not necessarily a consequence of the fact that we have a republic instead of a democracy, since even other republics (e.g., France) have not evolved bipartisan systems because although a majority is required to win the presidency (in their case a popular majority, but a majority still), if no candidate wins a majority of votes there will be a run-off election among the top two, so the two-ideology system is simply a temporary adjustment in the longer-term multi-ideology system.  Given enough years to evolve, the two party-system would naturally evolve under a majoritarian requirement.  It's not as though I was the first to come up with this idea.  Apparently a number of academic treatises have been written about this phenomenon.  I was in a meeting once about five years ago when I mentioned to a historian my theory and he chuckled and said, "that's called the xxxx theory, and much has been written about it."  (I forget the name of it, but did not forget the fact that I suddenly felt a bit foolish to think that I was the first to notice that.)

It does confuse things to have a two-party system superimposed upon three political cultures, as we do, since our congress therefore does not necessarily divide along the normal left/right lines, but the confusion does not negate the fact that we have an identifiable "left."  (Any assumption otherwise syllogistically leads to the conclusion that all Americans have similar ideologies, since given at least two different ideologies, one must necessarily be to the left of the other.  And I imagine that you can find at least two different ideologies among two hundred million voters.)  When I hear David Brooks, for example, refer to the left, I presume to take him in context.  If he is opining about the health care reform bill, I assume he's referring to supporters of a public option or supporters of universal health care.  While those two groups are not necessarily the same, they certainly aren't orthogonal, and will have common underlying motivational ideologies.  Similarly, if I read a Howard Kurtz column in which he refers to the right, I look for context.  If he's talking about campaign finance reform, I assume that "the right" refers to those opposed to restrictions.  (That solidly-right Senator John McCain introduced the bill perhaps confuses the syntax, but in such a context "the right" still seems to refer to opponents.  At least to me.)

[opebo]

While "the left" certainly exists in US politics, we don't really have a formal leftist party in the congress like Germany does.

So if that's so, then why haven't we had any leftist policy? 

We have a coalition of the moralists and whatever traditionalists the Democrats can pick off to win seats.  Nor do we have an easily-identified, unadulterated right, since the Republicans are not pure individualists (they too must pick off enough traditionalists to win seats.)

Please try to look under the surface, angus.  You're kind of stuck in 1912.  In modern days the 'moralism' of the Democrats is nothing more than the thinnest of veneers.  The real character of the Democratic Party is pragmatism - exemplified by everything from Keynesianism to Bill Clinton to FDR.  Just plain old center-right pragmatism.  The only moralist we had in the White house lately was LBJ.

As for calling the Republicans the party of 'individualism', well, I'll leave aside that said individualism is an obvious nonsense propaganda, and focus on the fact that it is still just a thin veneer - a minor sideline.  The Republican Party lives and breaths on nationalism and racism.  Sure, enslaving the poor ('individualism') is the actual purpose, but what really sells the party electorally is fear and hate.

[Хahar 🤔]

I was in a meeting once about five years ago when I mentioned to a historian my theory and he chuckled and said, "that's called the xxxx theory, and much has been written about it."  (I forget the name of it, but did not forget the fact that I suddenly felt a bit foolish to think that I was the first to notice that.)

I believe that that is Duverger's law.

[angus]

While "the left" certainly exists in US politics, we don't really have a formal leftist party in the congress like Germany does.

So if that's so, then why haven't we had any leftist policy? 

We have a coalition of the moralists and whatever traditionalists the Democrats can pick off to win seats.  Nor do we have an easily-identified, unadulterated right, since the Republicans are not pure individualists (they too must pick off enough traditionalists to win seats.)

Please try to look under the surface, angus.  You're kind of stuck in 1912.  In modern days the 'moralism' of the Democrats is nothing more than the thinnest of veneers.  The real character of the Democratic Party is pragmatism - exemplified by everything from Keynesianism to Bill Clinton to FDR.  Just plain old center-right pragmatism.  The only moralist we had in the White house lately was LBJ.

As for calling the Republicans the party of 'individualism', well, I'll leave aside that said individualism is an obvious nonsense propaganda, and focus on the fact that it is still just a thin veneer - a minor sideline.  The Republican Party lives and breaths on nationalism and racism.  Sure, enslaving the poor ('individualism') is the actual purpose, but what really sells the party electorally is fear and hate.

I don't know where to begin to call you out on such unfettered bullshit, but I'll give it a shot.  First of all, Carter was more moralistic than any president in my life or yours.  LBJ may be Al Sharpton's favorite president, but he's more pragmatic than any one besides LBJ and Clinton.  Secondly, if I were stuck in 1912 I'd point out that the Republicans were moralistic, since at the time the abject nationalism of the GOP actually played better among the moralists than among the traditionalists, most of whom were Democrats at that time.  Things have since changed obviously, and my post reflects those changes.  Thirdly, while I agree that the GOP thrives on nationalism (and in fact, nationalism has been, and remains, its defining characteristic since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856), it does not rely on racism.  In fact, the individualistic ideology which underpins its economic conservatism is based on meritocracy, and not upon quotas or set-ups or what George Bush called "the soft bigotry of low expectations."  Fourthly, nothing I said was false or superficial.  I kicked the tires, looked under the hood, and decided to purchase it anyway, hoping I could fix it.  Perhaps my naïveté lies therein, but not in any misinterpretation that you are suggesting I've made but cannot muster any evidence to support.

[opebo]

...First of all, Carter was more moralistic than any president in my life or yours.  LBJ may be Al Sharpton's favorite president, but he's more pragmatic than any one besides... Clinton.

No, Carter was a moralistic man, but a pragmatic president.  LBJ was a pragmatic man, but a moralistic president.  I will readily admit that Carter did engage in a little bit of moralism regarding foreign relations, but as we all know foreign relations is of little importance.  LBJ did the most self consciously moralistic action ever done in american politics - the Civil Rights act - even knowing that he was, as a practical matter, destroying his own party.  Why did he do this?  Because he was acting 'morally' - he believed it was 'right'.  (yes, arguably Prohibition and the Drug War is more moralistic than Civil Rights, but it was/is mostly done because it is popular - Civil Rights was most definitely not popular.)

Carter was a moralist personality but most of his domestic policy was either inaction or actually right-leaning.
 

... I agree that the GOP thrives on nationalism (and in fact, nationalism has been, and remains, its defining characteristic since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856), it does not rely on racism.  In fact, the individualistic ideology which underpins its economic conservatism is based on meritocracy, and not upon quotas or set-ups or what George Bush called "the soft bigotry of low expectations."

What rot.  What you are describing is the cover story of pretending not to be racist by making the absurd claim that racism doesn't exist, or doesn't effect 'the playing field'.  My friend, if you really wish to claim that the GOP is not a racist party, it is hard to take you seriously.  Just look at who supports it - why do you think all those Southerners are so devotedly Republican?  I suspect you don't realize how racist most of your countrymen are.

[Sewer]

A group of effeminate, pathetic individuals who disdain religion, tradition, and morality; who believe that rights derive not from God but from the state; who design to purge all individual aspiration from the world; followers of a slave morality; haters of achievement; despising all that is great and elevating everything that is lowly; those who would seek to alter man's natural condition and change it into something utterly unrecognizable; those who profess love for the poor while nonetheless having nothing but contempt for them; who believe that all men are equal and yet hold themselves higher than all the rest; those who are so concerned with inequality that they would rather have the world destroyed than have it endure; purveyors of the greatest lie since the Serpent appeared in the Garden and whispered, "Ye shall be as gods ..."

lol

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I think Bob Novak referred to them as "ilk"

[Ban my account ffs!]

While "the left" certainly exists in US politics, we don't really have a formal leftist party in the congress like Germany does.

So if that's so, then why haven't we had any leftist policy? 

We have a coalition of the moralists and whatever traditionalists the Democrats can pick off to win seats.  Nor do we have an easily-identified, unadulterated right, since the Republicans are not pure individualists (they too must pick off enough traditionalists to win seats.)

Please try to look under the surface, angus.  You're kind of stuck in 1912.  In modern days the 'moralism' of the Democrats is nothing more than the thinnest of veneers.  The real character of the Democratic Party is pragmatism - exemplified by everything from Keynesianism to Bill Clinton to FDR.  Just plain old center-right pragmatism.  The only moralist we had in the White house lately was LBJ.

As for calling the Republicans the party of 'individualism', well, I'll leave aside that said individualism is an obvious nonsense propaganda, and focus on the fact that it is still just a thin veneer - a minor sideline.  The Republican Party lives and breaths on nationalism and racism.  Sure, enslaving the poor ('individualism') is the actual purpose, but what really sells the party electorally is fear and hate.

I don't know where to begin to call you out on such unfettered bullshit, but I'll give it a shot.  First of all, Carter was more moralistic than any president in my life or yours.  LBJ may be Al Sharpton's favorite president, but he's more pragmatic than any one besides LBJ and Clinton.  Secondly, if I were stuck in 1912 I'd point out that the Republicans were moralistic, since at the time the abject nationalism of the GOP actually played better among the moralists than among the traditionalists, most of whom were Democrats at that time.  Things have since changed obviously, and my post reflects those changes.  Thirdly, while I agree that the GOP thrives on nationalism (and in fact, nationalism has been, and remains, its defining characteristic since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856), it does not rely on racism.  In fact, the individualistic ideology which underpins its economic conservatism is based on meritocracy, and not upon quotas or set-ups or what George Bush called "the soft bigotry of low expectations."  Fourthly, nothing I said was false or superficial.  I kicked the tires, looked under the hood, and decided to purchase it anyway, hoping I could fix it.  Perhaps my naïveté lies therein, but not in any misinterpretation that you are suggesting I've made but cannot muster any evidence to support.

See, I don't agree that the Republicans support a meritocracy.  Their actions support more of an aristocracy where your educational quality and future prospects are determined more by your parents' education and income than on your own merits and abilities.

I have argued with many Republicans about setting up a true meritocracy, especially regarding education.. and they seem to think that a free market approach where ability to pay is more important than ability to succeed is a good idea.

The Republicans are also heavily supporting a corporate ideology that favors who you know over what you know, where performance is secondary to your name, and the status quo and short term profits are king.

[opebo]

In fact, the individualistic ideology which underpins its economic conservatism is based on meritocracy,

See, I don't agree that the Republicans support a meritocracy.  Their actions support more of an aristocracy where your educational quality and future prospects are determined more by your parents' education and income than on your own merits and abilities.

Haha, good catch Snowguy - I didn't even notice that bit of nonsense in angie's post.  'Meritocracy' my ass!  Every Western European country is more of a meritocracy than the USA, and most definitely capitalism is not a 'meritocratic' system.

My French and German friends here are astounded that American claims to have the most reasonable economic model.  The French always point out the obvious - 'but it only serves a tiny minority!', but the Germans put it in a more interesting way - 'but you simply waste people'!  Teutonic pragmatism.

[Sasquatch]

The DLC rounded them all up and put them in the basement.