What caused the shift of America's political "center"?

[YoungDemCA]

During the decades of the mid-20th century, you had Communists and socialists on the Left, conservatives and reactionaries on the Right, and liberals occupying, basically, the mainstream "Center" between those two extremes.

In recent decades, however, the liberals in the Democratic Party have moved to the Right (even though they supposedly are the Left) and the Republican conservatives have moved into batshit territory. For all the Right's fear of Communism or socialism, there are no socialists left in American politics (unless you consider Bernie Sanders a socialist, which I suppose he is by today's political standards), and Communism is an increasingly distant Cold War memory.

What explains this difference? Why has the whole political spectrum moved so far to the Right?

[rrneck]

1. Money.

Profit taking by the 1%.

[Vincardog]

12. Plus 30 years of St. RayGun's policies enacted by the SCOTUS as well as ALEC

[fredamae]

2. Follow The Money n/t

[YoungDemCA]

3. ..into the pockets of the wealthy...

..who increasingly dominate American politics?

[fredamae]

5. I will affirm that is

my belief.
They've managed to drive out the honest pols and replaced them with their own bought and paid for reps--in local Cities, Counties, State and of course Federal Govts.

It no longer matters whether you call yourself a Dem or Repub--statistically and proved by Votes--you are likely not working for the people who elected you, but rather those who "hand-picked, groomed and paid you off"

Many (including me) were and still are too willing to ignore, forgive, rationalize and forget our Own Party Leaders bs...We need to change that.
Sometime burying ones head in the sand is the least frightening thing we can do but it's getting us absolutely Nowhere fast.
Accept our harsh reality and get to work, imo

[Octafish]

4. A corrupted news media designed to propagandize the interests of the Ownership Class

From DUer ClaraT:

The Seminal Work on This-Propaganda by Alex Carey

Review of Alex Carey, Taking the Risk out of Democracy: Propaganda in the US and Australia

(University of NSW Press, 1995. 214 pp., $19.95)

Reviewed by Alex McCutcheon in Green Left Weekly

As Alex Carey sees it, "The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy''.

Throughout this book of collected essays with its unified theme, Carey succeeds in showing the reader that far from being a natural outcome of "market forces'' or some natural "law of nature'', the present hegemony that corporations enjoy has been the result of a consciously pursued goal whose origins lie within corporate America.

Carey makes the crucial (and often forgotten) point that in a technologically advanced democracy, "the maintenance of the existing power and privileges are vulnerable to popular opinion'' in a way that is not true in authoritarian societies. Therefore elite propaganda must assume a "more covert and sophisticated role''.

In the US, corporate propaganda has played upon the high level of religious beliefs in the community, beliefs which leave its citizens predisposed to see the world in "Manichean terms''. This outlook leads towards a preference for action over reflection, a "pragmatic orientation'' that is perfectly suited to the corporate aim of identifying positive symbols with business, while assigning negative values to those that oppose them, such as labour unions and welfare provisions.

The organised dissemination of these symbols had its initial impetus in groups such as the National Americanization Committee, which succeeded in manipulating nationalist and patriotic symbols during World War I to associate corporate values with the "American way of life''. The psychological power of this association cannot be discounted: it has proved to be an enduring feature of the political climate in the US today.

Since then the corporate agenda has embraced all areas of society - media, schools, academia and the workplace - with focuses on different levels from "grassroots'' to "tree-tops''. It has succeeded via the mass media in identifying capitalism with democracy and in portraying any challenge to corporate elites as either "subversive'' or "extremist''.

This campaign to vilify those who do not adhere to the desired apathy is exemplified by the shameful way in which some industrial psychologists portray economic interests of employees to be somehow neurotic or dysfunctional. Their shabby efforts to lend an air of science to this field are put under the spotlight by Carey and found severely wanting.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/25/006.html

More on Mr. Carey:

Alex Carey: Corporations and Propaganda
The Attack on Democracy

The 20th century, said Carey, is marked by three historic developments: the growth of democracy via the expansion of the franchise, the growth of corporations, and the growth of propaganda to protect corporations from democracy. Carey wrote that the people of the US have been subjected to an unparalleled, expensive, 3/4 century long propaganda effort designed to expand corporate rights by undermining democracy and destroying the unions. And, in his manuscript, unpublished during his life time, he described that history, going back to World War I and ending with the Reagan era. Carey covers the little known role of the US Chamber of Commerce in the McCarthy witch hunts of post WWII and shows how the continued campaign against "Big Government" plays an important role in bringing Reagan to power.

John Pilger called Carey "a second Orwell", Noam Chomsky dedicated his book, Manufacturing Consent, to him. And even though TUC Radio runs our documentary based on Carey's manuscript at least every two years and draws a huge response each time, Alex Carey is still unknown.

Given today's spotlight on corporations that may change. It is not only the Occupy movement that inspired me to present this program again at this time. By an amazing historic coincidence Bill Moyers and Charlie Cray of Greenpeace have just added the missing chapter to Carey's analysis. Carey's manuscript ends in 1988 when he committed suicide. Moyers and Cray begin with 1971 and bring the corporate propaganda project up to date.

This is a fairly complex production with many voices, historic sound clips, and source material. The program has been used by writers and students of history and propaganda. Alex Carey: Taking the Risk out of Democracy, Corporate Propaganda VS Freedom and Liberty with a foreword by Noam Chomsky was published by the University of Illinois Press in 1995.

SOURCE: http://tucradio.org/new.html

Then, there's Michael Parenti:

Propaganda and Class Structure

Michael Parenti, 1988

excerpted from the book Stenographers to Power

p43
MP: I would define propaganda as the mobilization of information and arguments with the intent to bring people to a particular viewpoint. In that sense there could be false and deceptive propaganda, and there could be propaganda that has a real educational value. You can after all inform people and mobilize them toward truth. In the United States the word "propaganda" is unrelievedly negative. In certain other countries, propaganda has a more neutral implication.

p44
MP: The first premise of propaganda in the United States today is at doesn't exist, that there is no propaganda from the established media and from the government and that we have only "information." Propaganda is something that other people do. That's reflected in that definition of a doctrine. And nobody in the United States says they're selling or pushing a doctrine; they all say they're just reporting it like it is. That's the first premise: the denial that there is propaganda. The second quality of propaganda in the United States is that it operates all the time and its major dedication is to avoid any kind of confrontation regarding class struggle in the United States. It denies any recognition that there is exploitation of labor, that the rich exploit the poor, that we exploit the third world, etc. We've now reached the point where you can talk about racism and sexism, but you cannot really talk about class power in America, and if you do, you are said to be engaging in propaganda.

p46
It's no secret. The Council on Foreign Relations was formed in 1922 by John D. Rockefeller, Sr., Nelson Aldridge and by J.P. Morgan. It's a council whose personnel are drawn from the corporate elite, with some college presidents, academics, news media people, and political leaders thrown in. The Council on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Economic Development, the Trilateral Commission are all organizations that have been formed, financed and staffed by these corporate elites. They provide the personnel who then serve in various administrations. The Council on Foreign Relations has placed its members as Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense in every administration, whether its Republican or Democratic.

Jimmy Carter had 12 members of the Trilateral Commission in his cabinet, including himself and Walter Mondale. The Trilateral Commission was started by David Rockefeller. These elites have a capacity to place their members in the top decision-making positions unequalled by any other interest group in America. There's no labor union, no farmers' group, no teachers' group, there's no pro-abortion or anti-abortion group that could hope to place their leaders the way these people do. Their role is not to pursue the interests of any one particular corporation. Their role in these councils is to look at what are the common interests of all the various multinational corporations, what is the common interest, what is the common interest of the financial class.

p47
MP: You can't talk about these kinds of things in the mainstream media because the media are owned by the very same people who staff these councils and staff our top decision-making positions. Capitalism is not only an economic system, it's an entire social order. Its function is not just to produce cars and refrigerators and make a profit for its owners. It also produces a whole communication universe, a symbolic field, a culture, a control over various social institutions like universities, museums and churches. Those of us who have a view which is anti-capitalist are frozen out, or we are consigned to small publications. You can say, well, you're consigned to small publications because you don't have that much to say or people don't care about what you're saying. It's not true. People would be interested in our message if they'd get a chance to hear it. And in any case, why not give them a chance to reject it? Why don't we get a chance to get on networks? Why don't we get the syndicated columns that appear in 300 newspapers? Why don't we get space in the mass-circulation magazines, in Time and Newsweek? Why don't we get commentaries on ABC, NBC, CBS? Why don't we get on Nightline?

p49
MP: There will be times when dissident perspectives can come through because the ideological control isn't all that efficient. Somebody might get something in, but only once. Take, for example, the time Bill Moyers described imperialism in Guatemala. He talked about how a democratically elected government under Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 was overthrown by the CIA with the instigation of the multinationals in a country where 2 percent of the population own 80 percent of the wealth and how today in Guatemala there's no occupational safety controls, no labor unions, no minimum wage, and much misery and poverty. He was able to say that in his report on Central America once. You never heard it again. So occasionally little things like that will come in.

CONTINUED...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Media/Propaganda_Parenti_STP.html

My 2-cents.

[rurallib]

13. that's my vote also. Even NPR has a noticeable right wing slant these days

hard to find anything but corporate news on radio or TV

[Comrade_McKenzie]

14. Yep. And sites like Alternet and Commondreams are so full of shit... it's not even funny. nt

[indepat]

6. Money which buys the politicians, MSM, and elections: the result is the people are

told what the plutocrats want them to hear and the politicians do their bidding to the detriment of the rest of society.

[octoberlib]

7. Money. It's not just the US. Canada and Europe also. nt

[magellan]

8. Are you familiar with ALEC?

ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, exposed here. It's been around for decades, quietly buying influence in our state legislatures and writing our laws. A large part of the shift to the right over that time can be directly attributed to the corrupt influence of ALEC.

As others have said, follow the money.

[HereSince1628]

9. Money, yes, but particularly the turn toward corporate money

and the dilution of influence of traditional sources of money on the left.

[YvonneCa]

10. GWB's base...

...in 2000. The wealthy oil money, business/corporations, and unaware religious fundamentalists who were used. JMHO.

[limpyhobbler]

11. Media consolidation, corporate propaganda, televangelists, and cowardice?

I don't know.

Also check the polls to see if opinion has really changed or is that just a myth promoted by TV talking heads and politicians.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. the collapse of the industrial base thus causing the collapse of the political power of the unions

The unions in modern industrialized capitalist democracies have for the entire 20th Century been the peoples' lobby - the counterbalance in political power to the raw power of capital. Not only advocating higher wages for their members but the prime driving force behind the New Deal, the Great Society and almost all progressive legislation. They were also the educator of the working class - raising their political and class consciousness - persuading their people and providing the foot soldiers for advancing a progressive agenda.

Globalization not only moved jobs first south into anti-union territory and then across boarders to avoid the salary demands of even non-union labor. This not only takes away the jobs - it castrates the unions of their fundamental leverage power - the ability to withdraw labor supply - When capital power can with a click of a button get their orders filled in China or India at a cheaper price - what leverage do the industrial unions have anymore?

In 1960 more than 30% of working Americans were Union members. In 1980 it was down to about 20%. Today it is somewhere around 7% to 8%

[PufPuf23]

16. Money, propoganda, globalization, religion, and institutionalized state and corporate crime.

[Dawson Leery]

17. +1

[moondust]

20. + Reagan Democrats, DLC Republicrats, Newt, Tom Delay,

financialization, union busting, Reagan-inspired government scapegoating/bashing, and a lot of self-serving, corruptible politicians on the take.

[LeftInTX]

18. The right is evil and evil always finds its way into our lives.

That's a bit of hyperbole. I've asked the same question myself and can't quite pinpoint it.

We went from a fairly liberal Republican, Nixon/Ford to extremely conservative, Raygun in only 4 years. And to boot Nixon was impeached and Ford did not even win re-election. However, I don't think Raygun won because he was extremely conservative. I think he won because he was a movie star and people liked him more than Carter.

But still evil abhors a vacuum.....

[randome]

19. I don't routinely look for one cause for anything in society.

But I maintain our increase in population has a lot to do with the changes in the past thirty years.

More people equals more competition for dollars. More competition means cutting corners, looking for bribes and, finally, a more Conservative mindset to put money above all else.