How much have Democrats changed in 50 years?

[Cosmo]

Ok so this is the cartoon. On one side is shown one line from one Democrat, spoken over 50 years ago, about national service (the current Democratic president is enthusiastically in favor of national service programs, for which he has been BASHED by Republicans.) On the right side is just a made-up line that no Democrat has ever said or come close to saying.

It's completely idiotic. It's a cartoon for god's sake. And you guys are trotting it out as if it's some kind of knockdown argument LOL

 

[BigRob]

I suppose I could, but it's a very strange request. There are actually people out there who deny that both political parties have shifted to the right over the past thirty years? Seriously?

Are you going to be more specific or not?

 

[Cosmo]

I already have. Re-read the thread.

Don't you remember all that talk in the 90s about how Clinton was a "New Democrat"? What do you think that was about? It was about how he would govern to the right of the traditional New Deal Democratic Party. He would have much closer ties to business, etc. Obama has followed this. Wall Street actually donated more to the Obama campaign than to the McCain campaign. Why do you think that is? Do Wall Street banks donate to someone who they think is a liberal???

The central fact about the Democratic Party over the last three and a half decades is its shift away from labor and being the "party of the people" to yet another party of big business (in order to compete for corporate campaign contributions). There is only one real party, the business party. It just has two wings, known as Republicans and Democrats. There are some differences of course but they're basically minor.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Are you going to be more specific or not?

Don't know about you, but I see no point in feeding the trolls. Life's too short.

 

[Rick]

I already have. Re-read the thread.

Don't you remember all that talk in the 90s about how Clinton was a "New Democrat"? What do you think that was about? It was about how he would govern to the right of the traditional New Deal Democratic Party. He would have much closer ties to business, etc. Obama has followed this. Wall Street actually donated more to the Obama campaign than to the McCain campaign. Why do you think that is? Do Wall Street banks donate to someone who they think is a liberal???

Clinton's centrism in the 1990s was merely a result of the fact that democrats got crushed in the 1994 midterm congressional elections, and the GOP ran both houses for the last six years of Bubba's incumbency - he was merely dealing in a realpolitik way with the reality that existed. As for wall street, anyone who knows the facts knows that the top echelons of wall street have been infested with libs for a long time - eg goldman sachs is like a revolving door where the management is democrat politicians one year and traders the next. As for why they donate, it's good business - a little campaign money now can mean big bucks after the election, as eg GM and GE could tell you about.

 

[Cosmo]

I think you guys are confused about the term "liberal." Sure, the entities you mention may be "liberal" in the sense that they're pro-choice, supportive of equal rights for gays, etc. But that stuff is completely innocuous. It involves taking on no special interests or big money. In this regard the New York Times is liberal. But liberal also means standing up for the people against big business, taking on powerful interests, supporting labor, speaking truth to power, being anti-establishment. And for that, the TRUE concept of liberalism, you have to go to people like Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown and Dennis Kucinich. The Democrats are a business party. So are the Republicans. Anyone who doesn't see that is just blind.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think you guys are confused about the term "liberal."

I don't disagree that people frequently misuse the term but it seems you are misusing it as well.

You say "Liberalism" yet you offer Progressives and Socialists as the people who supposedly embody the concept you call "Liberalism":

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.​

Classical Liberalism is soundly rejected by both Progressives and Socialists.

 

[Cosmo]

Disagree completely. The ideals that have informed traditional anarchism or socialism in modern European history have flowed directly from the ideals of Classical Liberalism and the Enlightenment. People like Smith and von Humboldt and Jefferson, people considered the preeminent classical liberals, would likely be horrified at the modern version of capitalism. Smith was pre-capitalism so his writing must be looked at differently. Jefferson was alive and got to see what was beginning to take shape..... which led him to denounce the "aristocracy of monied corporations" that threatened the essence of the American revolution.

 

[GenSeneca]

The ideals that have informed traditional anarchism or socialism in modern European history have flowed directly from the ideals of Classical Liberalism and the Enlightenment.

Someone's a fan of Noam Chomsky: he is a self-declared anarcho-syndicalist and a libertarian socialist, principles he regards as grounded in the Age of Enlightenment and as "the proper and natural extension of classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society."

Classical Liberalism is based on Individualism and volitional consent while Socialism is based on Collectivism and coercion. While Noam considers his philosophy to be the "proper and natural extension of classical liberalism" I consider it to be a perversion sharing very little in common with classical liberalism.

Smith was pre-capitalism so his writing must be looked at differently.

Smith also pulled a 180 on his political beliefs, Capitalists can cite his earlier work as supportive their view while Socialists can cite his later work as supportive of theirs.

Jefferson was alive and got to see what was beginning to take shape..... which led him to denounce the "aristocracy of monied corporations" that threatened the essence of the American revolution.

Lets add a bit more context:

I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. ​

You can read the full text of the letter HERE.

The "example" Jefferson was referring to was that of England, where corporate colonialism created a partnership between the corporations and the state, nearly identical to the system of State Corporatism that has taken root here in America. One such example of the state granting monopoly rights to a corporation can be found HERE on our forum. That is the type of systemic abuse Jefferson was trying to keep from taking root in America.

To claim Jefferson was saying that Corporations by themselves "threatened the essence of the American revolution" is intellectually dishonest. Jefferson spoke at length about the importance of separating church and state but honest people do not claim Jefferson was anti-religion. Jefferson believed in the separation of corporation and state for the same reason he believed in the separation of church and state, such partnerships are the enemy of liberty.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I suppose I could, but it's a very strange request. There are actually people out there who deny that both political parties have shifted to the right over the past thirty years? Seriously?

you talking about a site where some people would tell you that Fox News is not right wing....so take that with a grain of salt.

But your right the Dems have moved quite a bit right on more then a few issues...and the Republicans...well they have gone more ( though often in rhetoric only...when push comes to shove and they are actually in control...they don't do what they said most of the time)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Don't know about you, but I see no point in feeding the trolls. Life's too short.

kettle black

 

[Gipper]

you talking about a site where some people would tell you that Fox News is not right wing....so take that with a grain of salt.

But your right the Dems have moved quite a bit right on more then a few issues...and the Republicans...well they have gone more ( though often in rhetoric only...when push comes to shove and they are actually in control...they don't do what they said most of the time)

Actually you have it backwards as usual my lefty friend.

You think most of the media is moderate and unbiased. You actually believe the news presented by the TV and cable networks are most fair excepting of course Fox which in your mind is outrageously right wing.

You fail to recognize how delusional your thinking is. You would not recognize left wing bias if it was shoved down your throat. Rather typical of lefties.

 

[Cosmo]

Someone's a fan of Noam Chomsky: he is a self-declared anarcho-syndicalist and a libertarian socialist, principles he regards as grounded in the Age of Enlightenment and as "the proper and natural extension of classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society."

Classical Liberalism is based on Individualism and volitional consent while Socialism is based on Collectivism and coercion. While Noam considers his philosophy to be the "proper and natural extension of classical liberalism" I consider it to be a perversion sharing very little in common with classical liberalism.

Guilty as charged. Huge Chomsky fan. No one has influenced me more. I do have some differences with him, but not many.

To claim Jefferson was saying that Corporations by themselves "threatened the essence of the American revolution" is intellectually dishonest. Jefferson spoke at length about the importance of separating church and state but honest people do not claim Jefferson was anti-religion. Jefferson believed in the separation of corporation and state for the same reason he believed in the separation of church and state, such partnerships are the enemy of liberty.

Jefferson wasn't anti-religion? Huh? He was deist and was about as opposed to organized religion as anyone could be in the pre-Darwin era. He had contempt for organized religion, including Christianity. I personally think he might have been an atheist - he was certainly denounced as such by political rivals - but I admit that's speculation. In any event he was no more than a deist.

As for the rest of what you say, that's all true, but that's because Jefferson lived in a time where the most prominent power structures were public, namely governments. So that's what liberals feared and were suspicious of. He did not live to see the age in which private power, namely corporations, would wield such sweeping power. Private power is magnitudes worse than government power. I cannot possibly envision Jefferson being supportive of the modern versions of the very "monied corporations" he denounced. Besides, modern capitalism demands corporatism. Big business demands, for example, the state provide a massive modern infrastructure. Without infrastructure there can be no capitalism. But businesses are of course not willing to pay for this infrastructure themselves; the state must do it by taxing everyone else. And the state does.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Actually you have it backwards as usual my lefty friend.

You think most of the media is moderate and unbiased. You actually believe the news presented by the TV and cable networks are most fair excepting of course Fox which in your mind is outrageously right wing.

You fail to recognize how delusional your thinking is. You would not recognize left wing bias if it was shoved down your throat. Rather typical of lefties.

wrong as always

I never say MSNBC is not Liberal leaning and has some bias...I unlike you can admit to things like that. Fox News is not only right wing, but realy is a part of the Republican party. CNN is middle of the road, but just sucks though use to be better...

 

[Gipper]

CNN is middle of the road, but just sucks though use to be better...

Once again you prove my point. You are just too easy.

CNN is middle of the road....hahahahaha....too funny.