Chomsky on things...Gov't Shutdown

[Tahuti]

It is blatantly obvious that the Democrat Party has been getting more and more conservative for the past 30 years, much less recently.

That's only true if you believe the economic dimension matters so much more than the non-economic dimension. For instance, Obama couldn't be elected in the primaries of the 1970s or before that, and until deep in the 1960s, uncountable amounts of Democrats (including JFK) were courting support from segragationists. For most of the 20th century, the Democrats were completely insensitive to racial minority rights, and Woodrow Wilson and FDR were enacted some very grossly racist policies, with Harry Truman being the only exception by forcing the desegregation of the armed forces. However, this would have definitely happened under a GOP President as well.

The Democrats have actually become more Libertarian, rather than Conservative, by swapping their original white supremacist constituencies (who have since become marginalized) for racial minorities and ethical progressives, a major 180 turn.

 

[illram]

The question is, why aren't those on the left end of the spectrum making themselves heard while the Democrats are abandoning them?

Is everyone just accepting the shift because they continue to accept the Democrats as the lesser evil? Or did the electorate as a whole move to the right with the Democrats?

Progressives are making a stink, but the current political climate in the center of the Democratic party is basically a "roll our eyes" attitude and wishing the annoying progressives would just shut up. That is basically how Obama's press secretaries have characterized the left-wing of the party anyway over his past two administrations. Because in reality Obama's administration, at least economically, very much encapsulates the center, wall street loving wing of the Democrats right now. You could make the argument the current administration is really advancing a conservative economic agenda. The free market, Wall Street, and mostly unbridled capitalism reign supreme. Conservative social welfare policies and government budgets remain largely unchanged from the past decades. Even formerly very progressive politicians like our Governor, Jerry Brown, need their arms twisted to enact pro-labor or pro-employee rights bills, which used to be Democrat bread and butter stuff.

We get a bone thrown to us once in a while but but the reality is the progressive wing of the party is on life support. And the democrats continue to get the votes because this is indeed a system of choosing the lesser evil.

 

[peter grimes]

Only 20 percent or so of the US population are even leftists. Of those, perhaps 1-2% are "extremist leftists". So name one elected Democrat politician who is one, much less anybody for whom you could possibly vote.

Bernie Sanders
Dennis Kucinich
[Ralph Nader]

I think all of these would be considered moderate left by global standards. And these are all people who have earned a lot of votes over the years.

But I think this only proves your point: I can only come up with 3 names over the last 16 years. The US political climate is decidedly "right"

 

[ParkCungHee]

That's only true if you believe the economic dimension matters so much more than the non-economic dimension. For instance, Obama couldn't be elected in the primaries of the 1970s or before that, and until deep in the 1960s, uncountable amounts of Democrats (including JFK) were courting support from segragationists. For most of the 20th century, the Democrats were completely insensitive to racial minority rights, and Woodrow Wilson and FDR were enacted some very grossly racist policies, with Harry Truman being the only exception by forcing the desegregation of the armed forces. However, this would have definitely happened under a GOP President as well.

This assumes that the political left/right have some transtemporal agendas that is the end game for either side.

That's interesting. I wonder why it hasn't gotten more attention among political pundits?

Generally speaking? Most pundits are crap.

More charitably to the ones that aren't crap, it hasn't really mattered yet. The democrats are moving to the right because the Republicans are giving up huge swaths of voters to the right of say, the 2004 democratic party. Obama and congressmen haven't done things like...for example expand drone strikes because of some vague inertia they can't overcome, or even committed to a political battle over a health plan proposed by a republican think tank just because it's the "best they can get."

If the democrats wanted something more expansive right now, they'd go for it, because it's clear the Republican party is not going to be appeased by moderation. No, as the Republican party has contracted to the extreme right, the democratic party has been stepping in to fill the void.

Democrats have reversed the trend from the Vietnam war where Republicans were the party of 'Responsible, Reasonable' people. Not an endorsement of these kinds, obvious (especially coming from me) but the young George Bush Srs. for example, are entering into the Democratic party and attaching themselves to democratic politicians.

It's just, you know, none of this matters right now because the democrats are in a struggle to govern at all against the resistance of the Republican party.

 

[Tahuti]

This assumes that the political left/right have some transtemporal agendas that is the end game for either side.

Not necessarily no. It is rather relative to time and all. Yet Democrats were to the right of Republicans since practically the latter's inception until at least the arrival of George McGovern.

 

[Lord Baal]

Similar things are happening in most liberal democracies, France excluded. One of the main reasons political parties are stepping to the right is that it involves cosying up to corporate interests. And corporate interests have money. For a lot of political parties that were once left-wing, they are confronted with the stark choice of moving to the right themselves - which is being made easier, as former right-wing parties, like the GOP in the US and the LNP here in Australia, move to the far-right - or of becoming politically marginalised.

Funnily enough, the average voter in liberal democracies tends to be slightly left-wing, but they eat up what the media feeds them; and most states are dominated by the right-wing media. Especially here, where Rupert Murdoch controls something on the order of 9/10s of newspapers and periodicals in metropolitan areas.

If the public were better informed about the people they're voting for, they likely wouldn't vote for them. This would enable left-wing alternatives, like the Greens in Australia or Ralph Nader in the US, to gain some traction. That doesn't look like happening anytime soon, unfortunately.

 

[Gary Childress]

I wasn't arguing?

I'm pretty sure Chomsky would consider Marx right-wing. I'm not sure I've ever heard him refer to anyone as left-wing.

I don't think Chomsky would consider Marx "right-wing". Lenin? Maybe. Chomsky is not a fan of Lenin. I personally have never seen Chomsky refer to anyone as "left wing" either. So I don't know who would qualify for that. Truthfully he has often referred to many on the "right wing" as "reactionary" and not "conservative".

My understanding of "conservative vs liberal" is that liberals want to change things in order to progress. Conservatives want to keep change form getting out of hand. But both are supposed to ultimately be in favor of the same thing, that the world be as good a place as possible for all to live in. I think of "reactionaries" as people who want to return to the past. We all know the past has been a difficult place to live in for many. I don't think anyone at this juncture in history should really want to return to the past.

But what do I know?

EDIT: On second thought, you may be correct about Marx. I may be wrong about Chomsky in that respect.

EDIT: On third thought. I'm not sure what Chomsky would classify Lenin as either. It's been awhile since I've read anything of Chomsky's. Hard to read anymore with the existence of computers, computer games and the Internet.

 

[Tahuti]

Similar things are happening in most liberal democracies, France excluded. One of the main reasons political parties are stepping to the right is that it involves cosying up to corporate interests. And corporate interests have money. For a lot of political parties that were once left-wing, they are confronted with the stark choice of moving to the right themselves - which is being made easier, as former right-wing parties, like the GOP in the US and the LNP here in Australia, move to the far-right - or of becoming politically marginalised.

While it true that politics in general are shifting towards reactionary viewpoints, it is for totally different reasons. Corporations tend to support unpopular progressive ideas when comes to ethnic minorities and immigration. And while corporations support deregulation and lower taxes, they also support corporate subsidies and other forms of government intervention that favors them. Corporate subsidies and bailouts tend to be liked by trade unions as well, who fear that production will be otherwise outsourced, so unlike popular narratives, corporations and trade unions quite often have common interests.

Voters tend to be very anti-immigration, and unless they are in need of social programs or pensioners or sensitive to tax issues, totally indifferent to economic issues as well, allowing business lobbies to fill the void, sometimes with policies that are also popular among the general populace like lower taxes and corporate subsidies (which will be sold as a job creation initiative). The shift in politics is primarily on national-cultural and law & order issues, which is essentially a populist push.

Funnily enough, the average voter in liberal democracies tends to be slightly left-wing, but they eat up what the media feeds them; and most states are dominated by the right-wing media. Especially here, where Rupert Murdoch controls something on the order of 9/10s of newspapers and periodicals in metropolitan areas.

This isn't true for Western Europe, where the average voter is actually quite right-wing.

 

[Lord Baal]

While it true that politics in general are shifting towards reactionary viewpoints, it is for totally different reasons. Corporations tend to support unpopular progressive ideas when comes to ethnic minorities and immigration.

Sure, when said immigrants can be used as virtual slave labour.

 

[Tahuti]

Sure, when said immigrants can be used as virtual slave labour.

Not just that. Investors are quite often foreign as well, and more permanent arrangements have to be made for them. Economic immigrants who come as employees are usually subject to temporary arrangements to increase their exploitability and thus cut down costs, that much is true, but also because granting permanent residence - which would reduce the ability to exploit - is a highly unpopular political choice.

In some ways, individual immigration restrictions may be a small benefit to corporations which as said can squeeze them for lower wages domestic workers. This is especially true for H1B visas in the US and even more especially the UAE, where managers confiscate migrants' visas to prevent them from legally changing jobs. But in the end, immigration restrictions are primarily as compromise between populist anti-immigration views and corporations' need for labor. In other words, if voters were less anti-immigrant, and allowed for the enactment of more pro-immigration laws, exploitation of immigrants and the negative economic consequences to the domestic economy would largely fade.

 

[timtofly]

The left only exists for social change. Once that is accomplished there is no longer any reason for it to exist.

 

[Tahuti]

The left only exists for social change. Once that is accomplished there is no longer any reason for it to exist.

There always room for social change. It is never finished. Besides, social change can also be achieved by reverting past changes.

However, both the terms left and right are anachronistic terms from the French Revolution. I try hard to avoid them to describe current-day politics, since no political system of any country including France itself is a carbon copy of that of the French Revolution. "Left" and "Right-wing" especially work bad when describing economics: The Leftists of the French Revolution were mostly - in today's political language - Libertarians, whilst the Right was anti-capitalist and favored heavy economic intervention to benefit the nobility and the French royalty.

Similarly, American "progressives" in the early 20th century displayed some shockingly racist and eugenic viewpoints not unlike Fascism, despite supporting policies that today have become common heritage or are still considered progressive.

Political taxonomies are best understood within the particular circumstances of the nation we are talking about, which includes avoiding universal labels like left-wing and right-wing. Not in the least part because - for instace - "left-wingers" in one country may support "right-wingers" against "left-wingers" in another, or vice versa.

 

[Cutlass]

The left only exists for social change. Once that is accomplished there is no longer any reason for it to exist.

The left is mostly about economics, not social change. The progressive movement was mostly about economic issues.

 

[timtofly]

Economics that effect social change.

The right has always been that which was established. The left is the sway away from the establishment. Even the Republican party was "leftist" to overthrow the issue of slavery.

 

[Tahuti]

The left is the sway away from the establishment.

The sway away from the establishment may also be reactionary.

 

[timtofly]

That would be the tea party.

Reactionary is usually in reaction to the change caused by the sway. Or the push back to the change. Social issues are not usually reactionary. Social issues are changes that have to be made as the old is no longer in acceptance. Once something is established and more or less the norm, it would fall into the camp of "rightness". Until the norm no longer works and a new leftist cause is introduced. Reaction basically happens as resistance to change, not the change itself.

 

[Cutlass]

Economics that effect social change.

The right has always been that which was established. The left is the sway away from the establishment. Even the Republican party was "leftist" to overthrow the issue of slavery.

It has rarely really been about social change. It was overwhelmingly economic in nature. In fact the progressive movement had very few aspects of social liberalism for most of it's existence.

 

[timtofly]

I am not sure how you can have economics without it effecting anything social, but I am sure you may feel they are two separate things.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that social inequality is all about how the economy is handled in most if not all of life's situations. You can label how people look at and approach the issue in different directions, but they are inseparable.

 

[Cutlass]

I am not sure how you can have economics without it effecting anything social, but I am sure you may feel they are two separate things.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that social inequality is all about how the economy is handled in most if not all of life's situations. You can label how people look at and approach the issue in different directions, but they are inseparable.

Everything effects everything. But with very few exceptions, the motives behind what liberals and progressives do is economic, not social. The social aspect is the secondary, even tertiary, consideration. Even the Civil Rights movement, and the women's rights movements, are primarily economic in motive. The lack of equal rights for these people directly effected their property rights. Gay marriage and reproductive freedom are also very much economic rights at least as much, if not more, than they are social rights.

The 2 are very intertwined. But it is still a distant minority of issues that liberals and progressives have worked for that are primarily social and secondarily economic. They have always been primarily economic, and only secondarily social.

 

[uppi]

Similar things are happening in most liberal democracies, France excluded.

Depends on what timescale you are talking about, but in the last 10 years German politics have moved quite a bit to the left. At this point, I believe there to be enough voter potential for a successful new political party to the right of the established parties. The advantage of proportional voting systems is that one party cannot ignore too large a part of its voting base.

Because of the American voting systems, the Democrats face no real danger from the left, so they can safely occupy the center-right politics until the Republicans start moving to the left again.