tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post3778235470323929962..comments2015-02-04T06:39:50.776-08:00Comments on LEFT HOOK! THE BLOG: "Far to the left in American politics"? A Test Caseclassicliberal2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04943197092480960084noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-91837349268210503622010-11-04T16:23:53.369-07:002010-11-04T16:23:53.369-07:00@Dradeeus - Only days before the election, Gallup ...@Dradeeus - Only days before the election, Gallup published a new poll that asked people what they thought the priority of the new congress should be. They offered to respondents four options, three of which were boilerplate conservative Republican boilerplate--cutting federal spending, extending all tax cuts, and repealing the health care law--but the one that got the most support, <i>by far</i> was "passing a new stimulus bill."<br /><br />No one but political junkies even know those anti-outsourcing bills existed. It was something about which the Obama talked during the campaign, but, instead of making it one of his top priorities (at a time when jobs are THE issue), he didn't even put it to congress until this past spring. It quietly went through the process and quietly died in September, when every Republican lockstepped against it. I haven't even been able to find any public polling on it--I imagine it would have 80% or more support.<br /><br />People are liberal. The reasons they vote for Republicans who totally disagree with them have very little to do with their own actual views.<br /><br />It's all a big con game. Thomas Frank outlined it six or seven years ago (I think his book was called "What's The Matter With Kansas?").classicliberal2https://www.blogger.com/profile/17960371221876522276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-87322657180354446952010-11-04T13:06:31.696-07:002010-11-04T13:06:31.696-07:00@Eddie Actually, according to polling and research...@Eddie Actually, according to polling and research I've seen, that applies to MOST LIBERAL POSITIONS.<br /><br />Where people are like "I hate liberals!" But agree with many, if not most, liberal positions.<br /><br />For instance, asked at the GOP website, the voters' main, #1 concern was tax breaks for companies who offshore jobs. That should be a pretty conservative position, but today that's seen as a liberal position. Why am I saying that? Because I think it's good, and therefore on my side?<br /><br />Actually because a bill came up that addressed it, and every single Republican voted against it and filibustered it. Most of us know that today's conservative positions are actually based off of "if you can't leave corporations alone entirely, the only other thing the government should do to corporations is help them get richer."<br /><br />Back to my main point, this applies to many, many things. Gun control. Regulations. Immigration. Social security. Education. War. And, interestingly enough, social justice.<br /><br />That's right. Many Republicans believe that the wealth gap should be massively lower than it is, and not just a little. When asked without stating anything about "Democrat" or "Republican", many people asked, said they wanted the wealth gap to be less than or on par with... well, heavily socialist countries.<br /><br />...Oh, the irony.<br /><br />But they'll still vote Republican. Because of the wording and cherry-picking of facts, and their major news outlet's aversion to tough questions, a great many people literally do not know they are liberals. (At least, as the word is defined according to today's political spectrum.)<br /><br />Some suggest that in their mind, there is a negative connotation that goes with the word "liberal" that turns them off, probably after listening to Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, where, even if they wanted to, they could not bring themselves to vote Democrat, no matter how much they agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-59085569969382335652010-11-04T10:57:11.407-07:002010-11-04T10:57:11.407-07:00@Dradeeus - I've been accused, many times, of ...@Dradeeus - I've been accused, many times, of overreacting to hyperbolic political language that I should just write off as an innocuous thing, merely a product of the politics of those offering it. I was accused of doing it just a few days ago in an argument with a right-wing columnist who claimed--among a great many other things--Obama has had an "ironclad grip on congress" the last two years, and that it was a "fact" that the stimulus bill "has only succeeded in slowing the recovery."<br /><br />Maybe my fuse IS too short on that sort of thing. I suspect I so often feel compelled to respond to it rather than just letting it go because I have a major concern about the right's increasing contempt for reality. Even just poking fun at the nuttiness of something like what IM had written at least comments on it in some way. Politics in the U.S. has, indeed, been, for ages, all about who can be the most manipulative--that's part of the reason why we end up with a right-wing House of Representatives elected by a public that utterly rejects the views of those it has just chosen to put in power. IM was being manipulative. There's a line between merely hyperbolic rhetoric and outright fantasy. He crossed it, and I slugged him for it.<br /><br />He can be praised for "honesty" in expressing his own views, but hardly for honesty in general.<br /><br />Wow, that all makes it sound a lot bigger than it really is, doesn't it?<br /><br />@Eddie - The parts of the health care bill people liked, in all of that polling, were the (relatively unimportant) liberal elements. People hated the mandate, and, if anyone had ever asked them about the larger structure of the bill (corporate welfare), they'd have been opposed to that, as well (apparently, though, no one ever did). The public option was one of its popular features.<br /><br />Republicans set out to demonize and destroy the entire health care effort for the same reason they tried to demonize and destroy everything else Obama suggested--doing so moves the parameters of debate ever rightward, maintains a persistent atmosphere of their being something very fundamentally wrong with Obama and the Democrats, and prevents Obama and the Demos from achieving any sort of "victory" that could be referenced around election-time. And, of course, the far right legitimately hates the bill (it's the product of those pesky "moderate" conservatives they love to hate).<br /><br />People were divided on the bill while it was being debated, but public opposition to it didn't become a plurality/majority position until the public option was dropped. People abandoned it in droves at that point, and the polling reflected that dropping the public option was the reason. A corporate welfare bill that had a mandate and that was going to raise everyone's health insurance costs--most people being "satisfied" with their insurance as a consequence of never having to use it--was always going to be a tough sell.classicliberal2https://www.blogger.com/profile/17960371221876522276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-11189858826738587722010-11-04T07:21:16.684-07:002010-11-04T07:21:16.684-07:00I think the most emblematic example of this whole ...I think the most emblematic example of this whole problem is the health care bill. Putting aside for the moment your own personal opposition to it, the story I keep hearing play out is this:<br /><br />The Public (usually meaning conservatives) HATES it. BUT, when you ask them about specific items that are IN it such as 'keeping kids on your plan through age 26' or 'no lifetime maximums' or 'no preexisting condition' so on and so forth... Suddenly everyone LOVES it. Or... at least the love the individual PROVISIONS, but still some how hate the BILL itself. About the only thing that DOES meet with general dislike (amongst lib's and cons alike, including yourself) is the MANDATE. But then... as you've pointed out many times, that was a REPUBLICAN idea! There's nothing LIBERAL about it!<br /><br />The Liberal alternative? The PUBLIC OPTION. Which had broad public support, would have lowered costs for everyone, and yet it's opposed by these fools simply for its being "liberal," and thus the WHOLE BILL ends up unpopular, even though everyone seems to like the INDIVIDUAL PROVISIONS, and the only thing that really angers ANYONE comes from the REPUBLICANS! <br /><br />(Oh... but "we're opposed to all this LIBERAL policy!") <br /><br />It's absurd. And the media, whether supporting it or opposing HCR, has grossly confused and misinformed the public about the bill, to the benefit of either PARTY, though more so to the Republicans. (Go figure.)<br /><br />The Right's simply got nothing to offer here. And as you've pointed out, THEY'RE the ones that remain out of touch, once you get people beyond their self-identification and their obsession with the Lib/Con LABELS. For the life of me I'll never understand how people can be so gullble or how they can get so excited about Conservatism. I just don't get it.Niceguy Eddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896896323840121445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-70883479059364362042010-11-04T00:51:00.541-07:002010-11-04T00:51:00.541-07:00I realize the point of the blog was to laugh at ho...I realize the point of the blog was to laugh at how absurd it is to call these extremely base-line liberal positions "the most radical positions ever". (By the way, according to his logic, just about every single developed country is ultra radical.)<br /><br />But...<br /><br />Well, I gotta say, it just may be the most honest right-wing political blog I've seen this election. I mean, it's not like they're inconsistent. It's not some sorta lie, or hypocrisy.<br /><br />They are on that side of the fence. The fence that sees the Patriot Act is awesome, the side that wants healthcare to be a privilege, that thinks the only way to beat terrorists is to essentially be terrorists yourselves.<br /><br />I'm almost PROUD of them for sticking to their positions instead of going into "WHY IS OBAMA SPENDING AND TAXING MORE THAN ANY AMERICAN PRESIDENT IN HISTORY?" Or "WHY DOESN'T OBAMA KNOW THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT US TO INVADE IRAN?"<br /><br />They're just stating their side. I personally think it sounds terrible, and subversive to general human ethics, and also, the laws that govern the country, but that's OK. It is! <br /><br />We can have that debate, and let people decide. It's how politics is SUPPOSED to work. Their side is A, ours is B.<br /><br />Unfortunately, that doesn't happen anymore. As voters vote for people who see their own positions as such a political liability that they will run from the press in order to not expose their honest ideology, our country is based off of a "Chris Matthews"-type political system, where the winner is whoever is more manipulative, regardless of truth, factual basis, hypocrisy, or ethics.<br /><br /><br />On a different note...<br /><br />Those're almost as funny as those ads that Republicans ran against each other.<br /><br />"(X) DOESN'T BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS COMPLETELY THE LITERAL TRUTH. CAN WE TRUST THIS MAN TO BE CONGRESSMAN?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com