The difference between a leftist and a liberal view of Trump.......

[socialist_n_TN]

I saw this the other day and I thought it was not only accurate, but worthy of discussion.

A liberal views Trump as an aberration that can be rectified by simply removing him from office, whereas a leftist views Trump as a symptom of deeper systemic problems with the entirety of the political and economic system of American capitalism.

I consider myself a leftist rather than a liberal, so I agree with this statement. Trump represents all that is wrong with American capitalism because he's a racist, he's xenophobic, and part is of an economic bubble class that has no idea of how the rest of us survive today. And he's supported by a section of the American bourgeoisie that sees profit in those ideas gaining ground with the population. Add to that the conditions of the last election that allowed him to use the system to his advantage in getting elected and you have a systemic problem that removing one person, no matter how powerful, will not remedy.

Thoughts?

[handmade34]

1. somehow made me think of this Randy Newman song...

(written during Bush but even Newman admits it's worse now!!)

In Defense of our Country

I'd like to say
A few words
In defense of our country
Whose people aren't bad
Nor are they mean
Now, the leaders we have
While they're the worst that we've had
Are hardly the worst
This poor world has seen
Let's turn history's pages, shall we?
Take the Caesars, for example
Why, with the first few of them
They were sleeping with their sister, stashing little boys in swimming pools, and burning down the city
And one of 'em, one of 'em appointed his own horse to be Counsel of the Empire
That's like vice president or something
That's not a very good example right now, is it?
But here's one:
Spanish Inquisition
That's a good one
Put people in a terrible position
I don't even like to think about it
Well, sometimes I like to think about it
Just a few words
In defense of our country
Whose time at the top
Could be coming to an end
Now, we don't want their love
And respect at this point's pretty much out of the question
But in times like these
We sure could use a friend
Hitler
Stalin
Men who need no introduction
King Leopold of Belgium, that's right
Everyone thinks he's so great
Well, he owned the Congo
He tore it up too
Took the diamonds
Took the silver
Took the gold
You know what he left 'em with?
Malaria
You know, a president once said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"
Now it seems like we're supposed to be afraid
It's patriotic, in fact
Color-coded
What we supposed to be afraid of?
Why, of being afraid
That's what terror means, doesn't it?
That's what it used to mean
You know, it pisses me off a little that this Supreme Court's gonna outlive me
Couple young Italian fellas and a brother on the Court now too
But I defy you, anywhere in the world, to find me two Italians as tight ass as the two Italians we got
And as for the brother
Well, Pluto's not a planet anymore either
The end of an empire
Is messy at best
And this empire's ending
Like all the rest
Like the Spanish Armada
Adrift on the sea
We're adrift in the land of the brave
And the home of the free
Goodbye
Goodbye
Goodbye
Goodbye

[Hortensis]

108. Just struck me as a typical dishonest, gratuitous insult.

Last edited Sun Oct 15, 2017, 08:38 PM - Edit history (8)

But as a liberal, what would I know? Accoding to that, clueless as two bags of rocks. Sigh.

NY Times Mag:

Hated by the Right. Mocked by the Left. Who Wants to Be ‘Liberal’ Anymore?

‘‘Liberal’’ has long been a dirty word to the American political right. It may be shortened, in the parlance of the Limbaugh Belt, to ‘‘libs,’’ or expanded to the offensive portmanteau ‘‘libtards.’’ But its target is always clear. For the people who use these epithets, liberals are, basically, everyone who leans to the left: big-spending Democrats with their unisex bathrooms and elaborate coffee. This is still how polls classify people, placing them on a neat spectrum from ‘‘extremely conservative’’ to ‘‘extremely liberal.’’

Over the last few years, though — and especially 2016 — there has been a surge of the opposite phenomenon: Now the political left is expressing its hatred of liberals, too. For the committed leftist, the ‘‘liberal’’ is a weak-minded, market-friendly centrist, wonky and technocratic and condescending to the working class. ...

This shift in terminology can be confusing, both politically and generationally — as when baby boomers describe fervent supporters of Bernie Sanders as ‘‘very liberal,’’ unaware that young Sanders­istas might find this vomit-inducing. It can also create common ground. Last year, ... a widely read piece on Vox deriding liberals for their ‘‘smug style’’; soon enough, one longtime adept of the right, National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru, was expressing his... View that what contemporary liberalism lacked most was humility. Here was a perspective common to both sides of the old spectrum: that liberals suffered from a serene, self-ratifying belief in their own reasonableness, and that it would spell their inevitable defeat. ...

... American liberalism was once associated with something far more robust, with immoderate presidents and spectacular waves of legislation like Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Today’s liberals stand accused of forsaking the clarity and ambition of even that flawed legacy. To call someone a liberal now, in other words, is often to denounce him or her as having abandoned liberalism. ...

... By the 20th century, American liberalism had come to mean something distinct. The focus on individual liberties was still there, but the vision of government had become stronger, more interventionist — ready to regulate markets, bust monopolies and spend its way out of economic downturns. After the end of World War II, this version of liberalism seemed so triumphant in the United States that the critic Lionel Trilling called it the country’s ‘‘sole intellectual tradition.’’ Its legislation legalized unions and, with Social Security, created a pension system; a health plan for older Americans, Medicare, was on the way. ...

If liberalism really is America’s core, hegemonic intellectual tradition, it’s easy to see how it has become the word we use to deride the status quo. For the left, that’s a politics in which government cravenly submits to corporate power and cultural debates distract from material needs. For the right, it’s one in which government continually overreaches and cultural debates are built to punish anyone who isn’t ‘‘politically correct.’’ But in both cases, ‘‘liberal’’ points to the consensus, the gutless compromise position, the arrogant pseudopolitics, the mealy-mouthed half-truth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/magazine/hated-by-the-right-mocked-by-the-left-who-wants-to-be-liberal-anymore.html

Well, the principles of liberalism as our nation's founding intellectual and ideological heritage, , largely institutionalized in our constitution and bill of rights, have not changed in 225 years. What has happened is that liberalism's enemies on the right have become enormously well funded and organized, with a resultant lavish 'trickle down" benefit to a similarly hostile left.

Well, proud liberal consensus seeker here. There is NO other way that We the People can achieve government of, by and for the people. That is a REAL thing, and the vast contempt for all but their own wishes that is uniting the right and left threatens the continuance of our democratic republic.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The very essence of liberalism summarized in the Declaration of Independence, principal author Thomas Jefferson

[betsuni]

118. Thank you for posting that article.

Confusing when one is called a libtard who longs for a socialist nanny state giving out free stuff (get a job!) and over-regulating businesses and making it illegal to say "Merry Christmas" to a few minutes later being called an elite corporation-and-war-loving hippie-puncher who hates unions and poor people.

[nini]

121. Great article

[nini]

2. You don't have to be a "leftist" to believe the problem goes beyond 45 himself

This is just a fancy way of playing fhe Purity card.

[joeybee12]

13. Yup

Some Jpr dipshit probably came up with this

[nini]

72. Seriously, this is getting so old

They're getting boring

[socialist_n_TN]

16. You call it the "Purity card".........

whereas I call it a fundamental difference in viewpoint which changes the approach to the problem.

[nini]

71. Well, you don't understand then

Because I am a Liberal and I saw this coming under Reagan. I know exactly what you're talking about but disagree only leftists understand it. So, yes.. it's the old purity test AGAIN.

[emulatorloo]

77. I don't believe there is a fundamental difference. So to me your thread sets up a false division

I understand your reasoning, I just don't buy it. It is pretty strawmannish.

[Merlot]

28. I'm a liberal and can see that removing 45 will not solve the problem.

[leftofcool]

102. Yep. More purity bullshit

[sweetroxie]

3. I agree with you. But

doesn't that make our job even more monumentally difficult?

[socialist_n_TN]

14. Yes it does..........

But you can't paper over a fundamental difference of this magnitude.

[leftstreet]

6. The OP doesn't mention Sanders or Clinton n/t

[Trust Buster]

8. Far left vs. liberals ? We Hillary folks might not be smart be we can still connect the dots....LOL

[socialist_n_TN]

12. I never said that liberals weren't smart...........

They just don't see the problem as systemic for the most part. And even those that will grant that it might be systemic think that the system itself can solve the problems OF the system.

[mcar]

20. Who is they?

Who, exactly, are you talking about?

[Trust Buster]

21. I find your comment to be ignorant and arrogant at best. First, I consider myself a progressive

Centrist. Your broad brush is very arrogant. No centrist that I know thinks that Don the Con created the environment from which he thrives. Republicans have used dog whistles for decades. The right wing media has stoked fear for the past two decades. The Con was classless enough to cast aside the dog whistles and go directly to the heart of the matter. To say “They just don’t see the problem as systematic for the most part” is arrogant and dismissive. You really should apologize IMO.

[stevenleser]

25. Your post went live a minute after mine but we both used the same word.

Arrogance.

This, IMNSHO is what gives rise to the splits in the party and third party efforts by the Naders and Steins and their ilk, arrogance. Unjustified arrogance. A belief that only they see certain things (which everyone in the left spectrum sees) and that only their solutions will work, when their solutions are usually superficial and not particularly well thought through

[tymorial]

81. Awesome.

[leftofcool]

103. Which is exactly why we will not take House or Senate in 2018

The Democratic Party has been taken over by purity bullshit and people are leaving it in droves. Good Democrats are sick of it and while those "pure" leftists or what ever they call themselves these days run the Democratic Party into the ground, we continue to get douchebags like Trump. There are millions of us Hillary Democrats and I can assure the Nader/Stein/Sanders folks, we will be sitting out 2020 if the DNC does not run a legitimate Democrat.

[mountain grammy]

120. Good Democrats?

You'll be sitting out 2020? Wow! We're really are finished if that's the general attitude out there. I hope you're wrong about Democrats. Talk about a "purity test."

I don't agree with the OP because I think basically most of us are on the same page and understand completely how we got here and why, but you're all about "us Hillary Democrats" getting your way or else? What the fuck ever?

[socialist_n_TN]

11. Thank you. I didn't mention Sanders or Clinton........

because from MY leftist view, they're BOTH liberals and aren't willing to confront the root of the problem.

[kcr]

36. It didn't have to.

The logical fallacies that bolster the arguments that removing/failing to defeat Trump won't solve any problems were at the core of the 2016 primary wars. It also seems to be behind whatever argument the OP is claiming is the difference between two different types of people. Whatever. It's utter nonsense. One can recognize the huge benefits to removing Trump and they don't have to turn in their liberal creds to do so. They can still recognize all the systemic problems that need to be addressed and removing Trump wouldn't create a barrier to solving those issues.

[tymorial]

80. Oh Please. It didn't need to be stated.

It's obvious

[stevenleser]

18. OP didnt mention either but the sentiment is the same

Almost everyone from the most conservative Democrat on leftward recognizes a problem with the way the conservative right in this country conceives of capitalism. For some reason, some folks in certain parts of the left are constistently of the opinion that only they get things and only their solutions can possibly be right.

If I had to put a term to it I would say their belief system is laced with unjustified arrogance, particularly toward others in the left spectrum.

[Trust Buster]

24. The far left and far right might have different ideologies but their emotional self absorption is

Stunningly similar IMO.

[Eliot Rosewater]

31. That is exactly what this thread is, but I am a Hillary and DNC supporter so I cant

say more than that.

[Trust Buster]

35. Provocation was the motive here. We centrist Democratic simpletons are just not equipped to think

In anything but single dimensions. This is why we must be afflicted with the disease of “incrementalism”. Oh why oh why were we centrists not gifted with wisdom and multi dimensional analysis ? We are nothing more than prisoners in our own bodies.....LOL

[Eliot Rosewater]

41. LOL what is so funny about that is not ONE of these folks are as liberal

as I am.

They dont even want to know what I would do if I was in charge, but I am not, nor is anybody like me so since I am an ADULT I go with the party that gets me closest to my ideals of nationalized power, education, healthcare and more.

I dont know how people can still not understand the two party system, amazing.

But it is too late, the courts are gone, the country is gone. If the UN was smart they would brand us an enemy to the human race.

[socialist_n_TN]

60. So congrats! Do you believe that remedies can be found within ........

the electoral system? If so you are NOT as "left" as I am, although you're obviously more "liberal".

[socialist_n_TN]

44. So because I've studied these subjects and have formed an opinion on them.......

resulting from that study, I'm some sort of elitist? That sounds a lot like the old right-wing canard about the "liberal elites" that I've heard all my political life. Only this time it's liberals using it on leftists.

If you support capitalism, hell, support capitalism. That's easy enough in the US in 2017. You're certainly not going to pay any sort of political or personal price for that.

[Trust Buster]

62. I did not promote your thoughts anywhere in my post to the level of elitist.

I stated that it was arrogant and dismissive of you to paint centrist Democrats with a broad brush. In reality, the “elitist” meme is used by the far right and the far left to demean others. Not the other way around.

[socialist_n_TN]

64. Well "arrogant" and "smarter" certainly implies elitism..........

So you didn't call me "elitist" you just attributed to me the CONDITIONS that would imply "elitism".

[Trust Buster]

66. You deflect by arguing what the meaning of the word is is. You made a broad observation that

Was inaccurate to me as well as other posters. If you want to spend your Sunday mornings posting divisive Op’s, please don’t play the victim when you receive pushback.

[socialist_n_TN]

70. Not playing the victim at all........

I EXPECTED pushback when I posted. But I thought it was worth it for the potential discussion. And hey, y'all are the ones who started the "arrogant" and "smarter than thou" attacks. And those are the conditions that imply "elitism". That attitude in more than one post is that because I'm an actual leftist rather than a good centrist Democrat, I must think I'm better than everybody. Which is bullshit.

We won't find out who's right on a internet thread. The conditions of class struggle will show us who's right. We went five decades immediately after WWII thinking that capitalism with a few social democratic reforms was the cat's meow. Until Reagan convinced everybody, including Democrats, that HIS version of capitalism was best. And that lasted thirty years until the system imploded with the Great Recession. And now we've spent a decade suffering through the Long Depression of low growth. I think that it's fair to question the whole damn system.

Show me a "liberal" that's an anti-capitalist and I'll show you a "leftist", NOT a "liberal".

[JHan]

100. There's arrogance all over your op.

The premise of your OP is false.

Your whole op is you putting yourself in special regard because you think only you, and people who think like you, get what's wrong with the system and how it gave us Donald Trump.

Anyone who disagrees with your view of capitalism is a Liberal who doesn't get it...

The Electoral Process, imperfect tho it may be, is important. Last year was a missed opportunity in more ways than one: SCOTUS was lost but also federal courts, currently being filled up with Trump appointees ( filling spaces Obama appointees should have gotten, instead Obama's appointees languished in the senate) That's a real, tangible example of how consequential a President is...

As for Capitalism: It has helped lift people out of poverty, we all benefit from it because it has enabled us to have greater choice compared to our grandparents and a lower cost of living. However, it needs to be tempered with collectivist principles. No Liberal I know is an anarcho-capitalist.

No liberal I know doesn't understand the perniciousness of big money in Politics and worse, dark money. Further, no Liberal Justice was responsible for Citizens United.

We're in an ideological battle. Money is merely a means to an end. The Mercers and the Kochs etc don't need more money, their power is concentrated through influence, by shaping narratives and a particular view of the world resistant to progress.

As much as you rail against capitalism, your assessment of politics is actually consumerist. It's as if you're shopping for a deodorant or specific brand of perfume- It must contain x or y. It becomes a brand, where you distinguish your brand from another brand ( liberals) and this is how you identify yourself- "far leftist". My personal politics are very liberal, but my personal politics are not a reflection of reality and don't shape how I vote - I'm a pragmatic voter.

Of course a pragmatist or a centrist will frustrate you, pragmatists reject tribalism and understand game theory.

[Squinch]

94. No. The elitism come when one thinks no one else has studied these subjects

and has an informed opinion on them.

I'm curious. Why make these gratuitously divisive statements?

[JHan]

78. My personal politics have evolved over the last couple of years...

I used to consider myself a very very liberal ( even progressive) pragmatic sort...I was informed last year that I am actually a neo-liberal shill who didn't understand that my choice of support makes me as bad as a republican.

Ah well, can't please everybody.

[Trust Buster]

87. And so it continues.

[leftofcool]

104. Well stated.

[yurbud]

98. this was framed in terms of ideas not personalities. If "centrist" Dems want to stay in driver's...

seat, they might try that as well as learning to say no to their Wall Street buddies some of time.

[betsuni]

124. +1

[LuvLoogie]

5. So is that why leftists don't vote or vote third party?

[socialist_n_TN]

9. Pretty much........

Many leftists don't believe that we can "vote" ourselves out of this mess anyway. And even the ones that do recommend more radical platforms and politicians in order to attack the systemic problems.

[Eliot Rosewater]

42. So you openly promote not voting for the D party?

[socialist_n_TN]

46. Vote for whoever the fuck you want to............

I just thought this was a good topic for discussion and illustrated a fundamental difference of outlook.

[emulatorloo]

79. Strawmen arguments about false divisivions are never "good topics"

Nothing personal, I always enjoy yr insights.

Just think you've gone off the rails on this one. Pretty much every DU'er is on the same page and we're all pretty thoughtful and insightful.

[Squinch]

95. It illustrated something that some random guy made up in his head and you agreed with. Nothing more.

There is no such fundamental difference of outlook outside of your own head.

[BainsBane]

84. Then why would they lower themselves

to take part on a Democratic site?

[socialist_n_TN]

91. I can only speak for me, but in the US.........

a leftist usually has to go through liberalism to get there.

[Squinch]

7. Great. Another artificial division imposed on Democrats. I wish people would stop this shit.

[socialist_n_TN]

10. Not really "artificial" at all.........

This is a fundamental difference in outlook that leads to a fundamental difference in approach.

[Squinch]

15. No, it isn't. It's something that someone who identifies as "leftist," and who thinks he or she

is smarter than everyone else, made up out of thin air.

There is absolutely no reason for you to assume that those who identify as liberals are not able to see the deeper problems that Trump represents.

It's bullshit, it's divisive, and people need to stop assuming that their allies are stupid. And it would be great if people stopped spreading those divisive and ridiculous figments of others' imaginations.

[socialist_n_TN]

23. I never thought that I was smarter than anyone.......

Although that's the second time that's been brought up in this thread, so that must be the new talking point. Another version of the "liberal elite" that the right wing has always used.

The problem is capitalism. Straight up. Until liberals start supporting something OTHER than capitalism, it WILL remain a fundamental divide in outlook that calls for fundamentally different approaches. There will be some overlap of course in the approaches used by both groups politically. but those approaches will diverge fairly quickly.

[stevenleser]

27. You may not be aware of it but you clearly think so. Its in your writing

I’m not saying this to be mean, I’m taking you at your word that you are not consciously trying to do this and just trying to tell you that this is how your writing comes across.

[NurseJackie]

37. You're not alone in that observation. I see it as well. It's...

... divisive and off-putting.

[socialist_n_TN]

38. So it's "arrogant" for me to hold a viewpoint?.........

And to argue for that viewpoint? I wouldn't think that of you for holding your viewpoint. Mistaken yes, "arrogant" or "superior"? No.

In truth class struggle will ultimately tell us who's right and who's wrong.

[stevenleser]

43. Right because no one else on DU has a viewpoint

Last edited Sun Oct 15, 2017, 12:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Look, it’s probably an issue endemic to those on various political fringes. The folks on the far economic right and far Social right I am sure think they are smarter than everyone else and see things that no one else sees and get things that no one else gets.

The folks whose belief system is defined by conspiracy theories are the same way. So you have a lot of company at least. I’m not sure that’s the company you w;ant to be in, but that’s another issue.

[Squinch]

90. I never said you did. I said the person who wrote the original piece did. But

if you are spreading this divisive idiocy, then perhaps the shoe fits. I can't say. Only you can.

BUT if you think the problem can be simplified down to a meaningless phrase like, "the problem is capitalism" then it is YOU who does not understand the complexity of what we are up against.

[socialist_n_TN]

92. As I said elsewhere, just because the phrase ........

"capitalism is the problem" is reductionist, it does NOT mean that it's not complex. Capitalism and it's effects on the economy, politics, and society at large IS complex. And if you don't understand THAT, then maybe it's you that doesn't understand society and the way it's organized and WHO or what class it's organized FOR.

[Squinch]

93. Now tell me again about how you aren't calling your allies stupid.

[socialist_n_TN]

109. Weren't you the one telling me that I didn't understand............

"complexity"? I'm a Marxist. There's a ton of complexity in Marxist thought. To the point where most people would rather fall back on capitalist and imperialist anti-communist propaganda than to attempt to figure it out.

[Squinch]

110. It must be lonely to be you in such an intellectually lazy world.

[joeybee12]

17. No its not

Liberals can view the system as problematic. Just another way for garbage like Stein or Sarandon to feel superior

[socialist_n_TN]

30. Why in the world are so many people mischaracterizing this........

as leftists thinking they're "smarter" or "superior"? I don't think either of those things, nor do most leftists I know. We have come to a different conclusion than most liberals in regards to capitalism and the (lack of) remedies posed by the system itself. I don't support capitalism as the best way of organizing society and liberals do.

Just because I disagree with you on a position, doesn't mean that I think I'm "superior" or "smarter". I just think I'm correct. Actual events will prove one position or the other to be correct.

[Squinch]

96. Maybe "so many people" are not wrong, and you are the one who has the blind spot.

But I am guessing you will dismiss that possibility.

[Zen Democrat]

106. What if "so many people" are wrong? This argument predates my lifetime.

I believe the United States and the World would be better off today if the liberals in the Democratic Party had not blocked the renomination of Henry Wallace in 1944, instead pushing in the little known Truman on a late night vote. Roosevelt wanted Wallace renominated, but he was sick and not at the convention. Because Truman was veep when FDR died, we became a country of nuclear bombs, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, CIA, etc.etc. etal.

We need a new leader for the future of our party. Someone for whom there is not a slate of tried and true positions, but a quantum leap forward in human affairs.

[Squinch]

107. The event you describe is not the reason that we became a country dominated by the MIC.

No single person caused that. There needed to be a lot of actors with a lot of greed for that to happen, and there were more of those than were required to turn us into a martial culture.

And we are currently experiencing a president whose constituents thought he was a quantum leap from where they were. How's that working out for them?

[mcar]

19. I disagree completely

I am a liberal and I know the dotard is the manifestation of the rot of Republicanism and conservatism. I don't know one other liberal who thinks differently.

Please point to a liberal who has actually said the former.

[socialist_n_TN]

26. Nancy Pelosi said the the Democrats.........

who generally represent the "liberal" viewpoint in American politics, are a capitalist party. I don't disagree. And that shows that liberals view the remedies for systemic problems are to be found within the system itself.

And in your first sentence, you stated that "...the dotard is the manifestation of the rot of Republicanism and conservatism." Which left out an entire political class of Democratic politicians who supported the Reagan view of capitalism. It's not JUST Republicans that are the problem.

[ismnotwasm]

29. You are speaking of economic systems

And leaving out the social aspect. Reframing an old argument.

[socialist_n_TN]

33. The economic system influences the social aspects .........

to a overwhelming degree. Do you think that economic inequality, along with racism and xenophobia isn't profitable for capitalism?

[ismnotwasm]

50. Im saying you are underestimating social influences

In favor of the old “economic justice” argument in regards to the creation of Trump. Which always leaves out an unacceptable amount of history. Also, capitalism as a boogeyman doesn’t work in this case.

[socialist_n_TN]

63. Proto-fascist and even right wing authoritarian movements.............

like the one that elected Trump ALWAYS use the social issues like racism and xenophobia to inspire their "base". But it's not because those beliefs are the reason for the movement itself. Once again those social aspects are just the most visible manifestation of the movement. The purpose is, as Mussolini once famously said, "...a seamless blending of corporations and government..." And of course, to short-circuit workers' power in society.

[stevenleser]

32. And, as I am constantly telling Republicans, there are many shades of Capitalism

Republicans seem to think government paying for anything except the military means you have a Socialist government. Are you now telling me that even if only a single street vendor owns his business The system of government is necessarily 100% Capitalist?

The problem with your and Republican use of the word capitalism is that all nuance is lost. And Capitalism has a lot of nuance to it You can have an economy that is 90% privately owned and one that is 10% privately owned. Using what seems to be coming from you and republicans the difference is completely lost and only demagoguery remains.

And no, an entire class of Democrats did not support the Reagan view of capitalism. That is simply not true. Again the only thing that would lend one to believe that is a completely superficial view of the situation where the word Capitalism has lost all meaning.

[socialist_n_TN]

34. Wasn't it Bill Clinton who said......

"The era of Big Government is over"? That sounds like a Reagan view to me.

And as to the many "shades of capitalism", there's not. There are no modifiers needed. It's a system that only has concern for profit. The ONLY time it becomes interested in society at large is when it thinks there will be an interruption to the profit chain. And even then the first response of capitalism to that interruption is repression. They only "compromise" when the bourgeoisie see an existential threat to the entirety of the syste

[stevenleser]

40. And to you that means embracing Reaganism. See thats the problem

That statement to which you are attaching so much meaning really doesn’t mean much.

And yes there are many shades of capitalism. Even most attempts at pure socialism have had to allow some minor bits of capitalism to make their systems work. Are those systems then capitalist?

We are constantly in the realm of the absurd when dealing with the Republicans who are all far right and for whom any social program at all means your system is communist and the far left who see any bit of capitalism as Laissez fairiism and all the horrors that a pure capitalist system implies.

[Scruffy1]

48. Now you know why i don't post often.

Heaven forbid we bring Gramsci into it.

[socialist_n_TN]

52. There is another example that doesn't directly relate to US politics.........

but certainly does indirectly. Maggie Thatcher (Reagan's partner in neo-liberalism) once said that her biggest success was Tony Blair, the Labour leader. Reagan could have said the same thing about Bill Clinton. Both of the right-wing icons were able to change the political landscape to such a degree that their "opposition" adapted and adopted their policies. Thereby validating those policies.

[JHan]

114. Nuance is lost in these arguments.

If you don't accept far leftist definitions of capitalism, you're a shill.

I agree with you that it's the flip side of the big government argument: two sides of the same coin.

Absent is any recognition that markets have created abundance.

All you get is a very general view that capitalism "fails". Instead of acknowledging the benefits of markets facilitated by capitalism, and how Government has a role in capturing externalities, restricting monopolies/consolidation and monopsonies, and preventing degradation of the commons, you get an extreme view of capitalism easily swatted away by those who would do away with any collectivist approach to governance like redistributive/progressive taxation or regulatory reform which would effectively suppress the influence of the Barons.

There's this adherence to the utopian idea of a flat power structure which bears no semblance to reality since there will always be hierarchies, the key is creating a flatter power structure - a more fair power structure. Blowing up the system only allows for new forms of exploitation: because it's all about power. This is in our DNA.

It's not Democrats who want tax cuts, it's not Democrats who want to remove the social safety net, not Democrats who want to get rid of public education, or deport immigrants, or remove health benefits, or drop the minimum wage.

But, in some ways I get the appeal of it all, holding onto fringe views can be a source of comfort in uncertain times.

[mcar]

49. You didn't answer my question

You said

A liberal views Trump as an aberration that can be rectified by simply removing him from office,

I replied

Please point to a liberal who has actually said the former.

You response didn't address my request, it changed the subject. And then went to Reagan and false equivalence.

[socialist_n_TN]

58. As to whether they've used those exact words or not...........

I have no idea. So you win!

But liberals think that the remedies to the system can be had within the system. And that means getting rid of Trump, then I suppose, suffering through Mike Pence until an entirely new Congress is elected filled with Democrats who can find the solution to capitalism's problems within the framework of capitalism. Leftist's don't for the most part

[emulatorloo]

82. You're like Eastwood arguing with an empty chair, a strawman evil liberal you've created

The only names you've sited are Thatcher and Reagan, both conservatives and both dishonest liars.

Neither are liberals and I don't have much use for thatcher or Reagan's opinions.

[sweetloukillbot]

117. Ah, but if they use the names of actual liberals they'll get locked

So rail against liberals and then use Reagan as an example.
Brilliant in its own way...

[emulatorloo]

139. His thread wouldn't get locked. He just is unable to name a real liberal politician or pundit

that fits his strawman definition, imho.

[BzaDem]

112. "an entire political class of Democratic politicians who supported the Reagan view of capitalism"

What Democratic politicians support the "Reagan view of capitalism"?

[Trust Buster]

39. Unless your post was ghost written by someone from the far left that is.......LOL

[ismnotwasm]

22. Trump is a republican creation

Not so much an aberration as the result of a natural (for a republican, and republican values) process.

The word parsing is unhelpful, and quite inaccurate— depending on who is doing the definitions.

[Blue_true]

45. McCarthyism was powerful in the fifties.

People lost careers, property, lost their lives.

But good people perservered and McCarthy became a bad footnote of history.

Liberals study and know history. The far left is clueless, IMO. History runs in cycles, been that way for centuries. But concepts like Justice, Expansion of rights march on and policy happens.

The saying that the long arc of history bends toward justice was true 1000 years ago, True when MLK featured it and will be true anytime in the future. Reactionaries may win battles, but at no time in history have they won wars, truth and justice have always prevailed in the end - the far left don't understand that reality, IMO.

[JI7]

47. LOL

[DanTex]

51. Completely wrong.

You are totally mischaracterizing what liberals think. I don't know a single liberal who thinks simply getting Trump out of office will fix everything. Whoever wrote that (was it on JPR, perchance?) is ignorant of what liberals actually think.

The main difference between liberals and what you call "leftists" is that liberals understand that Ds are better than Rs, whereas leftists tend to think that both parties are incorrigibly capitalistic and so it doesn't matter. In fact, some leftists go so far as to prefer Rs to Ds because it will heighten the pains of capitalism and bring about the socialist revolution more quickly.

[KG]

53. word.

[Irish_Dem]

54. Trump is merely a reflection of the sickness in the US and the world.

The addiction to power and money.
I guess that makes me a leftist.

[socialist_n_TN]

56. That depends on whether you think that..........

"...addiction to power and money..." is systemic or individual. Although just recognizing that it exists is a step towards "leftism".

[Irish_Dem]

61. Systems merely reflect human nature, the individuals. There is a dark side to human nature

which controls some systems. These systems are corrupt, greedy and power driven.
Our society functions more in this vein.

There is also a good side to human nature. Some systems are enlightened, like the European models.

What does this make me????

[socialist_n_TN]

65. Probably leftist, but only you can really decide that...........

The problem with blaming greed, corruption and power, which are individual failings, is that it lets the system that ENCOURAGES those human failings off the hook for those failings.

[Irish_Dem]

69. I don't think anything is left off the hook. Humans make the systems.

Humans make a system that reflects their dark side. Then the system is dark side as well.
The individuals make sure that the masses have no power to change the system via propaganda, and subverting democracy.

So it is a bi-directional relationship, humans make the system, which then influences humans. A toxic spiral.

[G_j]

55. Not a new conversation,

Love Me, I'm A Liberal
By Phil Ochs 1966


I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine

But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star

But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
And I'm glad the commies were thrown out
Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board

I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
As long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?

But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

Yes, I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew

But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I attend all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs

And I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

Sure once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns

Ah, but I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal

[socialist_n_TN]

68. This song was in the back of my mind.......

when I was typing the OP.

[emulatorloo]

86. that explains a lot about yr thread

It's not 1966 anymore, and even in '66 I found that song to be over-simplistic. That's a great tactic for a songwriter/artist who wants to make an artistic statement, but not for genuine political analysis. Nor is it a strategy for achieving progressive change.

I disagree with people calling you arrogant because you are not arrogant or elitist at all!

I just think you're caught up in rigid binary thinking that falsely wants to make enemies out of allies. I was the same way too before Reagan got his second term, so understand the mindset.

[malaise]

57. I have long felt that Michael Parenti's Democracy for the Few

should be mandatory reading in American schools and colleges.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/387894.Democracy_for_the_Few

[Faux pas]

59. Kickin'

[Crunchy Frog]

67. I consider myself a liberal, and I've always seen Trump as a symptom of deeper systemic problems

in this country.

I think it's reductive to put it all down to capitalism, although I think the way we do economics is certainly part of the problem. I believe that there are deeper social divisions and cultural problems that have been festering since the Civil War, or since the founding of the country, and Republicans have been exacerbating and exploiting them for decades.

I don't see any easy way out of our country's mess, and I'm not even sure that there is a way out.

I do think that the notion that deep social divisions, racism, authoritarianism and demagoguery only emerge as a function of capitalism is extremely simplistic and reductive. I don't think that overly simplistic thinking will get us out of this.

That's my two cents, for what it's worth.

[socialist_n_TN]

73. Well, that's a thoughtful reply. I don't agree..........

, but it was thoughtful. It might be "reductive" to put it all down to capitalism, but Marx showed how capitalism works in history and the real world and Engels began the process of showing how it affected society. Of course authoritarianism and demagoguery are not a function ONLY of capitalism, but they certainly adopted those in order to increase the bourgeoisie's power within society. Social divisions are merely an offshoot of economic class divisions, whether it's between the slave/slaveowner, feudal liege/serf. or bourgeoisie/proletariat. Racism was a holdover from feudalism also, with it's beginnings in "bringing civilization to the heathens" by conquering them and stealing their resources for the profit of the King or the capitalists.

Reductive is not necessarily simplistic. It's just finding the underlying causes of the problems. And whether by adoption or innovation, capitalism is the reductive cause of these societal problems. To solve the problem, you have to look at what the problems have in common. That's capitalism. The problems all benefit the making of profit under capitalism.

[delisen]

74. Wrong analysis.

Might help if you defined your terms.

The terms leftist and liberal are used generically and people with a wide variety of political views and beliefs lay claim to these labels; sometimes they are used interchangeably.

There is the same problem with the term progressive.

Many people claim to be leftist and anti-capitalist who are in actuality willing beneficiaries of capitalism and others who are decidedly retro and playing out an intellectual end game of Marxist philosophy of previous centuries-they are not going to disrupt their lives or sacrifice their leisure time to bring about systemic change.

In fact I find they usually can't describe how their own lives will be different if there is systemic change

Racism, xenophobia, economic bubble classes (and I would add inequality for women) are also features of other social and economic systems.

[Jim Lane]

75. Unfortunately, responses here are hung up on your choice of words

You've definitely delineated two distinct strands of thought. Of course, there's something of a continuum, because many people aren't all one thing or all the other, but it's a real difference.

The problem is that people who lean more toward what you call the "liberal" view don't want to give up the title of "leftist". What's worse is that, because their preconception is that "leftist" is good, they react as if drawing this distinction in these terms is an attack on them personally.

There's no alternative set of terms that's immediately obvious to me. Maybe "incrementalist" and "fundamentalist"? That would have its own problems.

Using your terms, I'm one of those in-between types. I hold the "liberal" view about some of the horrors of the current administration. For example, Trump and people like Pruitt are wreaking terrible damage to the environment. Those problems would indeed be solved simply by replacing Trump with a standard-issue Democrat. Look at all the Democrats who've been nominated or have even been serious contenders for the party's nomination since 1969, when the EPA was created. None of them would have been nearly as bad as Trump on this score.

On the other hand, the "leftist" view is definitely correct in some areas. Under Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama -- just to take the three most recent Democratic Presidents -- the federal government's military spending has been vastly excessive. President Bernie Sanders would probably have proposed levels of spending that were somewhat lower than those that would have been proposed by President Hillary Clinton, but I don't think either of them would have been able to get the Pentagon's budget all the way down to sensible levels. One aspect of the "deeper systemic problems with the entirety of the political and economic system of American capitalism" is the enormous power of the military-industrial complex. Given the size of the profits to made from military spending, it's hard to see how we can make fundamental change under a capitalist system.

[sharedvalues]

76. Liberal here: GOP is the problem

The GOP, with its billionaire donor wing and its racist identity politics wing, is the real problem. Trump just hijacked the racist identity politics wing by saying out loud what mainstream GOP candidates have been dogwhistling for years.

Unless we fix money in politics, the country is in serious trouble.


And I'm center-right on some issues and center-left on others. I just don't like billionaires trying to screw me and the majority of America.

[BainsBane]

83. There are conservatives who agree with that assessment

as well as liberals. Generalizations like that are ridiculous. I suppose it makes you feel superior, which is its purpose.

[VOX]

85. The issue is the toxic moral cancer of the GOP, not how #45 is perceived.

“Leftist/liberal” — just words in this particular battle. The problem is Republican christo-corporate fascism combined with lack of GOP will, and thus #45 and his people— and the overall GOP— represent both immediate and long-term crises.

#45 is obviously a loud, blundering, self-important, highly disturbed individual, but it was Republicans who ran him as a candidate, and promoted and abetted him.
Getting rid of #45 as quickly as possible is necessary, even if it’s merely putting out the immediate fire, but it must be done to save the country from several different kinds of ruin.

Once that is accomplished (and it won’t be easy), THEN comes the second step of making the Republican Party less powerful than it is right now (that won’t be easy, either).

Am I a leftist? Yes. Am I a liberal? Yes. Do leftists and liberals need some Republican help to get #45 away from the nuclear codes? Yes, they are the pillars that support him, and right now, Democrats do not have enough people in congress to stop this monster by themselves.

[LostOne4Ever]

88. I have always viewed the term leftist (as well as progressive) as referring to economics only...

While viewing the term libertarian (in the classical sense of the ACLU and not the LP) as focusing on social issues. Consequently, The term liberal, by my understanding, incorporated both economics AND social issues. So if anything, I would see your anecodate the other way around.

Therefore, I personally identify as both a liberal and a left libertarian philosophically.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

89. I'm just glad our Democratic Party is a big tent.

We don't accomplish much by putting divisive labels on one another. We should instead embrace our differences and work together to forge change. I think most Democrats are well aware of the huge problem of inequality - social and economic - although our levels of education on these issues vary a lot.

The majority of Americans need to be better educated on our international systems of economics, although few are interested. It has grown into such a massive, complex monster that few understand it, and many that do profit from it and are a big part of the inequality issue.

It's good to see diverse views presented and discussed on DU.

[rockfordfile]

97. I'm a liberal and that op reads like something from Russia. Something to cause distraction

[Nonhlanhla]

99. No.

Both are lefty/liberal perspectives on Trump. The one position (which you called liberal) just focuses more on the extreme aberration from even otherwise already-problematic norms within US politics, and recognizes that he presents a virulent form of recurring racism which is at the heart of US political problems (and always have been). Many so-called liberals know that the problem goes deeper than Trump, but they can recognize the extreme fascist dangers he is poses.

The second position (which you call a lefty position) sometimes tends to focus primarily on economic inequality. That perspective is correct insofar as it recognizes that the problems go well beyond Trump, but it often leads to some lefties not recognizing the extreme risks involved in Trump, and to be blind to the racial issues at the root of not only Trumpism but US class politics as well.

It is quite possible to be both a lefty and a liberal, by the way. In fact, I would guess that many of us are.

[guillaumeb]

101. If one sees capitalism as the root of the problem,

in my view one is a leftist.

Many liberals declare that they do believe in capitalism, but they claim to believe in a kinder, gentler form of capitalism. I have never seen this kinder and gentler form of capitalism, but I will search for it.

In the capitalism I experience, the rich are always looking to get richer at the expense of everyone else, and their monopolies are always looking to grow bigger so as to control more. Again, at the expense of everyone else.

[BzaDem]

113. "I have never seen..." Have you seen any form of capitalism practiced throughout Europe?

It seems that there are plenty of "kinder, gentler forms of capitalism" throughout the world.

In fact, reality seems quite the opposite of what you describe. It is the kinder, gentler forms of communism that do not exist and have never existed. There is a reason why people who have lived under communism nearly uniformly prefer the current kinder/gentler forms of capitalism in those countries today.

[guillaumeb]

115. Capitalism is a business philosophy.

Social democracy is a political philosophy.

[BzaDem]

116. What about an answer to my question? :)

[JHan]

128. yep.

I think that's because capitalism is far more flexible than marxism

The social democracies many point to ( Scandinavian countries) are even more capitalistic than America with a far broader safety net.

[FreepFryer]

105. Deploying Democratic division as distraction from recent, real Republican revolt.

Democrats are more united than ever in our opposition to Trump and these kinda of strawmen are even more foolish than when the GOP was united in their opposition to President Obama.

Republicans are ideologically split in the way you mention - that's the anti-Trump division you should be focused on fostering, rather than meaningless, myopic, and ideologically vapid naval-gazing.

[Squinch]

111. Fabulous post!

I think we need to repeat this whenever this crap is attempted. Random internet guy quotes other random internet guy as if his words are the truth, and the words are invariably aimed at dividing Democrats.

Too many fall for it, even here.

[GulfCoast66]

119. Thanks for making it easy for me

By using bourgeoisie. You neglected to throw in the gratuitous proletariat, but I got cut of your jib.

Americans are capitalist. A huge majority of the Democratic Party are capitalist. We liberals believe in harnessing the power of the state to insure that the potential of capitalism benefits all citizens. Just like in all Western European countries. Just like FDR

If we liberals support vibrant industry regulated hard to insure all benefit we will win. If we start talking about the bourgeoisie we will be thought the fools.

Have a nice evening.

[betsuni]

122. Unregulated capitalism is a Republican idea and no one on the left thinks it's a good one.

American culture is highly individualistic with a stubborn anti-intellectual streak and will always be capitalist. Americans will never accept the high taxes that provide for the nationalized services and comfy safety nets many Europeans enjoy. Other cultures are more society and group orientated and more open to socialist ideas, and most of them have a much lower population and land mass.

Nobody thinks Trump is an aberration. He's been famous since the '80s Reagan bubble economy turned CEOs and Wall St. types into the new celebrities.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

123. I don't agree with the liberal/leftist division, but I agree that Trump is a symptom...

... of a deeper problem.

[Drunken Irishman]

125. Na'. Liberals viewed Trump as a monster threat to everything they ideologically stood for...

Leftists felt inclined to either support him, not vote or vote third party in spite of knowing he would actively work to undo everything they ideologically supposedly stand for.

Liberals have compassion, the realization Trump's presidency would be crippling for women, minorities, gays and the poor.

Leftists don't care about those groups - or care enough to stand up for 'em in one of the most important elections of our time.

[grossproffit]

132. You nailed it.

[betsuni]

135. +1

[JCanete]

140. That entirely ignores whether or not Trump is singular. He is probably not even singularly stupid

or cruel or petty among Republican leaders. He's not the only sociopath. He absolutely is a symptom, and yes, that symptom and the next one will be crippling for women and minorities and LGBQT, etc.

The question is, since this is the very question the OP is asking, do you, as someone who has disdain for leftists, and identifies as liberal, believe Trump is by himself the single greatest threat, or is he in power by virtue of something far more systemic than Russian influence, culminating in our political system going horribly horribly wrong? Hell, if the Republican party, and more importantly, the people who's pockets they are in, were not okay with Trump, impeachment hearings would have started a long time ago. Russia didn't tip this race, American institutions did. American media knows no equal when it comes to misinforming the public in a "free" society.

You want to characterize those on the left as people who don't give a shit, rather than to appreciate different genuine and well intentioned perspectives. Why isn't it enough to just think these people are misguided? Why do they have to be scumbags to you? Why not tackling the question of whether or not this is systematic if you think they've got it wrong, or if you think they've got their strategy wrong?

As to whether or not Trump is an aberration, his sort of candidacy hardly came out of left field to me. He is absolutely the logical progression of the path we've been going down as a nation. Democrats have had some shining moments in that time, but they've also abdicated too many times when they needed to be on the front lines of some of the issues that got us here. They have certainly abdicated on the class war...the one thing that could have put the poor and the middle class, immigrants and people of color and other members of the working class on the same side against the forces that actively work to divide us. We could have been the ones calling out the media as corporate mouthpieces that typically support the republican agenda, because of course thats what they do - they have financial incentives to do so. We let instead, the republicans and the media itself claim that it was liberal for decades without putting up a fight. We let them continue to frame us and to whitewash republicans without much of a fight. We didn't put up a united front against voter suppression...against voting machines...against the carceral state...against no child left behind...against the worst parts of trade agreements that killed small businesses...etc. In short, we've been allowing the Republicans to pummel us because we have refused to fight the way we should be fighting.

Our middling approach to governance and the rhetoric we use has not defined us effectively as the party fighting for the people. Yes, we are so much better than republicans, but because we have not slammed them right and left...because we have not offered the American people big sweeping changes that make it crystal clear who's side we're on, and who's side the republicans are on in stark contrast, we've allowed the waters to stay just muddy enough. We've allowed the scapegoating to be effective because we haven't given the people a better enemy...we haven't said "look up at the people who are actually screwing you." That would be galvanizing. That would actually be a step to eroding the misconceptions that divide us at the bottom.

I did vote for Clinton but there was a point where I did consider abstaining. That said, I didn't have to hold my nose when I voted for her. I was genuinely hopeful after some moves by her and the party subsequent to the convention. By I understand why some might not have been, and I understand why some might have seen business as usual(no matter how good at governance Clinton might have been) as the very thing that has culminated in this Trump and the next and the next.

Btw, Which leftists felt inclined to support Trump? That sounds like bullshit to me. Can you name any who voted for Trump or advocated for people voting for Trump?

[Drunken Irishman]

141. We all knew what we were going to get with Trump We got it.

Leftists threw gays, women, minorities, Muslims and every other non rich white American under the bus for ideological purity. The same leftists who rallied around Trump's BFF Julian Assange, talking him up as a hero, and, yes, even today still spoken as such among leftist communities. The leftists allied themselves with Trump at the expense of the workers, the blacks, the gays, the Mexicans, the women, the Muslims, the poor and just about every other sub-group who's now suffering because of Donald Trump. They're complacent in his election. They're complacent in his presidency. They're complacent in his movement that stands, or should stand, counter to EVERYTHING a leftist would really, truly believe.

Fuck Trump. And fuck the leftists who appeased him for so very long. Leftism in America is a corrupt, bigoted, lifeless, soulless movement and frankly, the sooner we hear of 'em the better because they've done nothing but further the regression of the country the last 20 years.

Fuck 'em.

[Willie Pep]

126. In hindsight Trump's rise is not surprising.

He is similar to the other right-wing populists who have been successful recently because they are taking advantage of the anger that many people feel toward the current state of the West. Economic problems, demographic and cultural change and a feeling that politicians don't care about ordinary people.

Even if Trump is defeated in 2020 I guarantee that "Trumpism" won't end with him. The scary thing is that one day we might end up with a more competent and intelligent version of Trump in the White House. That is very scary. I think that is why it is important to address some of the reasons why some people voted for Trump. I still think that some Trump voters (although certainly not all or even most) can be reached by the Democratic Party with the right message and the right policies.

[demosincebirth]

127. How about, just a plain 'ol democrat?

[JI7]

129. which ones wear the Che Shirts ?

[grossproffit]

131. Not liberals.

[Trumpocalypse]

130. Trump is not the problem

he is a symptom of over 20 years of FAUX news, Rush Limbaugh and right wing hate media.

[7962]

133. Thinking capitalism is the problem will get us nothing. Total Socialism ruins everything equally

Just look at the countries that go totally in that direction.
We are already a mixture of capitalism & socialism, as are most of the advanced countries. Its a matter of getting the RIGHT mix.
Total socialism is a joke and always has been. VZ is showing it now, as Cuba and the USSR and others have shown for decades before

[pnwmom]

134. There is no clear-cut, objective, generally accepted difference between a "leftist" and a "liberal."

So all you've done is stated an individual opinion, which you are welcome to.

[CanSocDem]

136. Capitalism...

...is the "reason you can't have nice things". Things like public health, social justice and equal opportunity that only those dreaded 'socialist' countries provide for their citizens.

Instead of "public health" the USA provides a massive feel good industry, a cradle to grave propaganda program and a network of markets and marketeers with priest-like authority.

Instead of "social justice" the USA provides a society that emphasizes and promotes class divisions and maintains a police and judicial system to enforce that value.

Instead of "equal opportunity" the USA provides a clever network of glass ceilings that 'liberals' think are breakable and within their reach.

I'm a social democrat so I wasn't really surprised by the election of Trump. Any idiot could see the restlessness of the population going back to the "arab spring" and even to your own OWS. The American fear of giving up their right to Get Rich trumped their desire to Raise All Boats and this is what you get.

K&R

[snooper2]

137. I thought you were a Socialist?

[Blue_Tires]

138. So we're in agreement... The first step is removing him from office

the rest is just window dressing....