Why liberals are frustrated...

[Ben]

Pole dancing

by digby

Why liberals are frustrated: (http://voteview.com/blog/?p=284)
Our findings here echo those discussed in a prior post (http://voteview.com/blog/?p=284) that Republicans have moved further to the right than Democrats to the left in the contemporary period. Indeed, as seen below, President Obama is the most moderate Democratic president since the end of World War II, while President George W. Bush was the most conservative president in the post-war era.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cgOtbUQGXcw/Ty7Ca71CznI/AAAAAAAADH4/Tmkrki-JvFA/s400/presidents_common_space_1D.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cgOtbUQGXcw/Ty7Ca71CznI/AAAAAAAADH4/Tmkrki-JvFA/s1600/presidents_common_space_1D.jpg)The good news is that while our politics have become more conservative our culture has become more liberal. It's an interesting dichotomy, but I think we're going to see a lot more tension now that cultural identity is becoming bound up more closely with economics. It's all changing and who knows where it's going?

An Update on Political Polarization:

http://voteview.com/blog/?p=284

[onmyknees]

So why are liberals so frustrated Ben? You're qualified to answer that.....despite your protestations to the contrary. Your copy and paste was dreadfully boring.

[Ben]

So why are liberals so frustrated Ben? You're qualified to answer that.....despite your protestations to the contrary. Your copy and paste was dreadfully boring.

Quite simple. As digby writes, "Republicans have moved further to the right than Democrats to the left in the contemporary period." But all politicians campaign from the left (Mitt Romney talking about jobs -- ha ha! Simply replace the word jobs for profits. He should be honest. But he can't. Such is the nature of politics.
I mean, if his sole goal was "job" creation the likes of Paul Singer wouldn't be backing him. Or Samuel Zell. Mr. Zell wouldn't be so zealous about Mitt if his sole concern was job growth and job creation. I mean, why would it be?
Zealous Zell would be irrational if he put other people's interests above of his own. Ya know if Zell said something like, "Conservation of the planet and American job growth is my main goal." Well, that statement is very irrational. You are not maximizing your own return and shareholder wealth with statements like that.
Corporations fought for free capital movement and the free importation of goods. (Read ol' Adam Smith.) To take advantage of large labor pools -- and consequently cheap(er) labor -- in India and China. Why? Increase investment return. And it better be this way. I'd expect it to be. Otherwise the corporate system (of profit maximization) wouldn't work.
Neither would Alice Walton back Mitt. She certainly cares about job creation... in China -- ha ha!
Alice Walton should and must be in favor of lowering her labor costs at Wal-Mart. And FOR the free import of goods. (Donald Trump addressed the issue of raising tariffs on Chinese goods. Which I found odd. And, too, was he serious?) If she didn't, well, she'd be incredibly irrational.
She is indeed, as it's called, a rational wealth maximizer. You're only supposed to be concerned about short-term personal gain. You know, I'm the only one that matters. Anyway, that's built into the institution. It's how the corporate structure works. And - it - has - to.
Corporations are not set up to create jobs. Their sole function is to maximize return on investment. Is there anything inherently wrong with this? Absolutely not. I mean, if a CEO were concerned strictly with "job" creation he or she wouldn't be doing his or her job.
Anyway, look at what Obama was saying in '08. Look at his campaign. He ran as a left-leaning liberal. But Obama is a moderate Republican. As is the Democratic Party. The Dems today are a moderate Republican Party. John McCain -- who acknowledges that global warming is real and dangerous -- would be wholeheartedly welcomed into the Democratic or moderate Republican Party.
Obama doesn't serve the interests of middle class and working class Americans. That's what the Liberal Democrats were traditionally about. Serving the interests of middle class and working class people. (I mean, the Republican Party, if you go back to the 1850s, were against wage labor. They didn't see any fundamental difference between wage labor and slavery. And, too, the Republican Party were against industrialization. They saw it as an attack on their culture. And, too, conservatism, if one goes back over 100 years were AGAINST concentrations of power. They saw it as dangerous and a sharp attack on human liberty and human dignity. Remember that conservatism CAME OUT OF classical liberalism. So, when you're talking about conservatism, well, you're really talking about classical liberalism.
That Republican Party is long dead, of course.)
The Republican Party today serve the super-rich. They've nothing to do with traditional conservatism. They're an: extreme nationalist party.
And the Dems are moving in that direction. They've abandoned their base -- the middle class -- and are simply serving the interests of a tiny fraction of the population.
In terms of social and economic development, well, America resembles a third world nation. (Read conservative commentator Paul Craig Roberts. But as he explicates in the vid clip below: when ya offshore the jobs, well, you offshore the incomes, when you offshore the incomes, well, you offshore the GDP, and you also offshore your tax base. It makes America poorer. It's a process of becoming LESS developed. Again, in terms of social and economic development we're resembling a Third World nation. I mean, even DONALD TRUMP agrees with this. No radical -- ha ha ha!)
The middle class has been decimated. And, again, the Lib Dems used to serve their interests, the interests of the middle class.
I mean, even the likes of Alex Jones (no lefty) said in order to have a working and functioning democracy you need a strong middle class.
Otherwise, well, if power is increasingly concentrated then democracy becomes a complete and utter sham.

Sen. John McCain refutes a global warming denier - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es)

THE NEW ECONOMY IS A HOAX 1of4 PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H02jk1oMJoU)

The History of Classical Liberalism - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-pI8FrMNrs)

[Ben]

OMK, I'm not entirely sure how you characterize liberalism? Um, is it that liberals loathe the military? Well, I don't. I admire soldiers. It's a very noble and unselfish profession. And I think soldiers should be paid a helluva lot more.
Is it that liberals loathe, say, the rich? Well, Madonna is super-rich. And I adore her. She's a big gay icon. Britney Spears is super-rich, too. I, of course, adore her. She's the ULTIMATE gay icon. Lindsay Lohan is fairly well off. And, too, Stephen King. I like him. He's done well for himself. It's based on supply and demand. People buy his books. And he's made a lot of money. It's pretty simple.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by liberal. I mean, HUNGANGELS is an extremely liberal site, very socially liberal. Maybe too liberal.
As social conservatives are against porn and prostitution, well, no one on this site can call themselves socially conservative. It'd be an utter joke.
Being for marriage is a conservative position. I'm all for that.
Being for the rule of law is a conservative stance. I'm all for that.
Um, traditional values and morality. I'm all for that.
Fiscal constraints or fiscal conservatism. I'm all for that.
I don't think you can or should characterize me as liberal. Anyway, the terms are becoming increasingly meaningless. Again, if you look at it from a historical perspective, well, the terms today are laughable. They don't really mean anything.

[Ben]

Glenn Greenwald summed it up awhile ago. Quote: "
Whether one is a “liberal” — or, for that matter, a “conservative” — is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush. . . .
People who self-identify as “conservatives” and have always been considered to be conservatives become liberal heathens the moment they dissent, even on the most non-ideological grounds, from a Bush decree. That’s because “conservatism” is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as “liberal” is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government.
That “conservatism” has come to mean “loyalty to George Bush” is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is. . . . And in that regard, people like Michelle Malkin, John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Hugh Hewitt are not conservatives. They are authoritarian cultists. Their allegiance is not to any principles of government but to strong authority through a single leader."

And:
So-called "liberals" will back Obama not matter what he does. As so-called "conservatives" backed Bush no matter what he did.
Again, I think these terms are becoming increasingly meaningless.
I mean, even libertarians diverge with respect to government powers, as it were.

[Ben]

Do you surrender your autonomy by joining a political party?

http://equalityanddemocracy.org/?p=89

[hippifried]

So-called "liberals" will back Obama So-called "liberals" will back Obama not matter what he does. As so-called "conservatives" backed Bush no matter what he did.
Again, I think these terms are becoming increasingly meaningless.
I mean, even libertarians diverge with respect to government powers, as it were.
So how's my political sphere looking now?

[Ben]

Liberals are the new right-wingers....

WTF: Majority of Democrats Now Support Drone Strikes, Guantanamo Bay - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63jQfeqnVmc)

[fred41]

It's ridiculous to think that military action or things such as limiting constitutional rights belong to a particular political party. As if all liberals are pacifists and right wingers are war mongers...this is simply not true, and extremely shallow thinking. Not to mention that history has often proved otherwise.

Different dynamics come into play here. For instance, some people think these actions are, more than likely, necessary when endorsed by their own Party/President...or, at the very least, still okay, just as long as the "other" Party/President isn't in power.