This new political battle does not break down along left v. right lines. This is an information war waged by corporate media to silence any competition or dissent.
Dear Substack: The ONLY reason I visit your website is to read authors like Greenwald who are able to publish real journalism here. If any of the authors I subscribe to are censored or pressured to change ANY of their content, I will immediately cancel my subscriptions and follow those authors to whatever platform they choose.
Likewise. I really do hope the decision-makers at Substack read your comment. I have already dumped facebook and twitter for participating in the censorship crusade and I would dump Substack in a heartbeat if they join in to censor Greenwald and Taibbi.
Indeed, this is why I refuse to subscribe to Medium or give them one thin dime. They censor and shadow ban. Not one penny will they ever see from me. I'm starting to find more interesting content on Substack anyway.
No, Glenn, you're wrong. It is the very definition of Left vs. Right. It's a war that the Left has declared against the Right. They use "right-wing" as if it's a smear. They can kiss my ass, it's a badge of honor. At least, I have honor and I'm not a Left-wing piece of shit like them.
ALL of the canceling, the censoring, and the silencing is coming from THE LEFT. I know that you're not a fearful journalist, so call them out and don't try to give us this both sides are bad bullshit.
The free speech movement in the 20th century was driven by left-wing politics. Many of the key First Amendment decisions on which I relied as a free speech lawyer were written by the court's left-wing members. ACLU lawyers who represented the NRA, the KKK and Christian students did so in the name of leftism. The free speech movement started at Berkeley. Many of the campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s to censor were done in the name of social conservatism by groups like the Moral Majority and other pro-Reagan organization. Many on the left vehemently oppose online censorship, while people on the right have supported some (see here (https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/) and here: https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/.
I agree that the bulk of the most recent censorship campaigns have been directed at the right, but by no means all (the writers Broderick identified as needing moderation are almost exclusively ones who identify as liberals). Don't make the mistake of reducing support for the cause of free speech by insisting that it is only a right-wing crusade.
I know that it was pushed by the liberal forces on the Left. We all benefited greatly from that. But the Left is no longer liberal.
Oh, I most definitely do "mistake" it as solely a right wing crusade. Please name all of the left-wing commentators/politicians who are standing up against cancel culture or even one who spoke up in defense of Alex Jones.
He was the first to be deplatformed and the success of that first one without one peep in his defense got the snowball rolling. It's ABSOLUTELY one sided.
This has been a huge problem in finding way to work with conservatives. Too many refuse to accept the left is not a monolith.
Even within Marxism, which is just one of many traditions in socialism, there's a huge range of ideas and schools of thought with lots of major disagreements.
Liberalism? It's an entirely different ideology with different goals.
This is a universal problem. I tend to lean more right logistically although I'm open to anything that sounds like a positive and productive solution or a program that benefits humanity and expands human liberty. All for the conversation. But strongly partisan and ideological people see the other side as a monolith, very consistently.
It's a problem I've found intractable. If you're on the left, a majority on the right make huge assumptions about your views on a host of issues because you believe certain typically liberal or leftist things on a small set of topics. If you're on the right, the same thing from the other angle. So many conversations about one thing turn into "that makes you just like Trump" or "I guess you like kids being in cages" . . . and other stuff often of no relevance to the original discussion.
Because people are prone to view individuals through a lens of group membership. Alas. In the modern era, it is not productive. But it tends to be what we do.
This is an astute observation. It is why the two-party political system we have is no longer working. Once people become part of one "tribe", they will become tribal. We need to somehow get rid of the GOP and Democrat parties, or at a minimum, have some alternate options with some real influence. I am in favor of a new party that represents working class citizens with traditional American values. I have not been successful though, in convincing many other people....
Free speech is central to political liberalism, you are correct. It's just that liberals seem to have decided they'll throw the political away to protect their economic liberalism.
My personal definition of "liberal" is live and let live. California used to be the very heart of this philosophy until thoughts and feelings were elevated above all other considerations. Alas, I am now a former Californian, deeply troubled by the contortions our professional political class has subjected to the concept and reality of liberalism.
I took the Red Pill, and no longer consider myself anything other than a conservative.
Exactly. True liberals (or leftists) are distinct from the modern "cancel culture" CORPORATE liberals and NEOliberals that control outlets like most major media and newspapers.
It's balanced in a way. Many/most harder left pretend the tiny few NSDAP imitators, scattered anti-semites, and also tiny white supremacist groups are representative of the "right." At least they perpetually show those in their extremely prejudiced propaganda.
Defending the rights of an Alex Jones to express his opinions, however toxic they may be, is NOT the equivalent of "defending Alex Jones". That is precisely the kind of false equivalency being used to attack ALL non-corporate media, as Mr. Greenwald has clearly stated above.
There are laws against free speech that result in harm. So, the current popular argument that people like Jones need to be muzzled because they're encouraging said harm to be done are specious.
Either all of us are free to speak our minds, or none of us are. That such a simple principle of human rights should even need to be discussed is terrifying.
I hope you will indulge a personal anecdote. Back in the day, Bill O'Reilly would sometimes interview people with absolutely outrageous views. He'd end the interview saying something like: "Thanks for being on the Factor and I respect your opinion."
That drove me nuts, and I finally sent him a note telling him that respect for an opinion is a high complement, and the words "I respect your opinion" should not be flung around indiscrimently the way Tinker Bell flings pixie dust. Those words should be reserved for opinions that are worth respecting.
When dealing with an opinion that does NOT deserve respect, if he must comment on it and and feels compelled to be polite, he should instead say: "I respect your right to your opinion."
Within 3 days, he's stopped using the word "respect" altogether.
To be fair - when I think of defending someone's fundamental human right to free speech, I am talking about someone who will ask people to not vote for the party at all which has been advocating for censorship. Neither of them have done that. They still want people like AOC who advocates for censorship and making lists of Trump supporters to be in power. To me free speech and being anti-critical race theory are two important things.
Ps. I am a Jimmy Dore fan even though I disagree with him on most of policies. I think he's misguided.
I tend to agree with Glenn. This isn't left vs right (as much as it might look like that). This is progressive vs. non-progressive. Or "far-left vs. everybody-an-inch-to-the-right-of far, far left". Liberalism and even leftism used to include valuing of free speech and individual liberty--the government was supposed to stay out of your womb and your bedroom and your private conversations and so on. There are some old school liberals who still believe that, and some who do stand up to what's going on. And there will be more as eventually all sort of liberals and even pretty-far-lefties will be dragged into struggle sessions and be deplatformed for inadequate purity.
And right and left are labels. Sometimes distracting. What we need right now is more Glenn Greenwalds. Don't really care what label they apply to themselves.
The left has been captured and brainwashed by corporate media. I grew up in the 1960s and Noam Chomsky was in the news all the time. I remember the values I grew up with but most people don’t. Corporate left knows that actual left-wing people have nowhere to go because of the entrenched two party system. My family thinks they are liberal but they are advocating for censorship and they think I’m the one who’s brainwashed when I talk about Glenn Greenwald or Chris Hedges. So at this point people like me have to team up with some of the smarter right wing people who are also against censorship. The New York Times has brainwashed everybody, as much as Fox News has.
It's all corporate media. And so easily manipulated. And always beholden to its advertisers. Fox might be willing to criticize Obama but when it comes to Big Pharma who pays most of their bills? Heck, no.
It would and probably is happening to other networks--NewsMax, OANN and the rest of the right-wing or alternative news, if they get an audience, can be taken over the exact same way.
The brainwashing is mostly thinking that what any of these corporate news organizations covers is actually news, irrespective of the partisan bent of one or the other.
Agreed. When I go on a supposedly Socialist site like Common Dreams, and 95% of posters are pushing Biden and the Democrats, that ain't left-wing. I understand some Right populists, Repubs are eyeing the new pro union bill. They've got to get voters from somewhere, and the Rust Belt voters who left the Dems for Trump have unions in their blood. Anyway, it is a sign of some positive oldtimey lefty movement!
We don't need to do Jay's homework for him. Plenty of leftists and liberals denounce censorship in entirely even-handed ways. Jay bought some stupid media talking point and is asking us to debunk. But I think the burden of evidence is on Jay to prove it.
That’s a bullshit way of asserting the unproven. It’s a message board, a non consequential conversation and limp dick here is like who? Who? Plenty that’s who. I don’t need to do your homework in this conversation.
If only the leftists in positions of power stood up for free speech, as opposed to comedians whose livelihoods depend on it. This is Glenn’s point is it not? Or are the anti free speech anti civil rights statists at these most powerful media companies not leftist?
Personally, I find this label argument that everyone one of these comment sections turn into a, tiresome. It is the same people making the same arguments and nothing is ever settled.
All that matters is what they people with guns believe and that is why they are trying so hard to take them away from us plebes that continue to think for ourselves.
What leftists are in positions of power? If you are even just a little bit moderately progressive then they won't even hide all the dirty tricks, cheats, smears and fraud they use to deny you power.
Yes, all of two. They are not in power and are never going to be. Dore is making noises about giving up. Chomsky will be dead soon enough, and nobody listened to him, either. The distinctive character of the new left is it's very clear adoption of and sympathy for communist thought and methods.
LOL. Name those among "the new left" are advocating for nationalization of industries and collectivization of agriculture? I'll agree with you that this group seems authoritarian, but this can be either left or right (which is Glenn's point).
To be fair - when I think of defending someone's fundamental human right to free speech, I am talking about someone who will ask people to not vote for the party at all which has been advocating for censorship. Neither of them have done that. They still want people like AOC who advocates for censorship and making lists of Trump supporters to be in power. To me free speech and being anti-critical race theory are two important things.
Ps. I am a Jimmy Dore fan even though I disagree with him on most of policies. I think he's misguided.
Every self respecting leftist like Glenn objected for that idiot losing his job. I, as hardcore leftist, hated it, since i knew it was wrong and they will come after real left soon enough. real left has no power, but at least we keep fighting. What about right wingers? Corporate power, Citizens VS United are all right wing ideas, so take responsibility I suppose. To be honest i absolutely enjoy the misery that is befallen to right wing people (don't agree with that but enjoy it). Right wingers have been the staunchest supporters of war and capitalism and now they are paying the price for their mess ups. The shit show is not left's doing, we tried to warn all of you, but you wouldn't listen.
So Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F., Kennedy were all right wing!! Amazing!!They started the wars involving the U.S. in the 20th century.
And Donald Trump is left wing!! Even more amazing!! He is the first President in decades not to start a war. And he worked hard to withdraw our troops from other countries. And he promoted peace in the Middle East, successfully.
What is really astonishing is that some very high ranking military people admitted (virtue signaled) that they resisted and in some cased outright disobeyed some of Trumps efforts to deescalate or drawdown troops in some areas. The military/industrial complex is not an idea it is an actual structured, operational hidden organization dedicated to feeding the sons and daughters of America into the maw of never ending wars to make MONEY and keep their power. Dismantling this monster would take a revolution that well fed and satisfied Americans nave no real stomach for. Its' very existence all around the globe is the reason that torroism keeps expanding and popping up like mushrooms after a rainstorm. They need one another.
it is a cancer that is metastazing and gradually eating up this country from the inside. I wonder at what point will the budget be enough to "defend" the US? At 1 trillion? (it is close to that), 1.5? Why not 2? Beside the obvious self-serving pork, there is important social aspect - military service is becoming the last possibility of upward social mobility for working class kids (economically depressed minorities are overrepresented in the lower ranks), and also a convenient way to remove many thousands of young, potentially rebellious youth from the streets of America and ship them to far flung bases to be trained and disciplined.
Trump, Democrats, and Republicans always had bipartisan consensus when it came to expanding the military industrial complex with record breaking funding year after year.
Yes, actually, they actually were right-wing, if by that you mean committed to the preservation of capitalism against any and every other economic system. At no time in history has either legacy US political party truly been a "party of the the people". I know. I got curious and started reading up on the subject. I recommend that for people who still think they get the full story on the internet.
Democrats are "leftist" only as often and to the minimal degree necessary to maintain their hold on power. Under Clinton, they essentially abdicated even that level of commitment. The myth that they have, in the past, been "taken over by the left" is just that—a myth. That we are in a place where that takeover might actually be within our reach is inspiring.
I can't comment on those wars since I am not sure on details on the ground, but American Imperialism is a right wing idea, irrespective who is pushing it. Trump "played" like he was trying to do it, but nothing happened so nothing to brag about, All America leadership is guilty of it and right wingers have been the biggest cheerleaders of war with neo libs (who are light rig wingers). So eat your cake friends, you made it :)
So-called right wing imperialism started in World War II. It is bi-partisan. People on the far right and far left oppose it. All establishment politicians support it . Follow the money. It is neoliberalism in a nutshell. It is one of the things that most disturbs about the current censorship that seeks to silence all opposition, doesn't matter if it is left or right. Right now in history, the left is supporting this censorship in a big way. Trump was one of the anomalies in this era. That is one reason both sides conspired to destroy him. But, as far as war is concerned, Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama, all were the same.
I would be interested in knowing about a history book that states that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were "right wing"! Please identify such a book for me. By the way, "The Zimmerman Telegram" by Barbara Tuchman does not make Wilson in any way "right wing".
President Trump was the exact opposite of what you say. He withdrew from areas of the world where we had no business to be. He started no wars, unlike his predecessors. He negotiated peace among many countries, something that President Obama did not do anywhere (Obama did restart the slave trade in North Africa, probably his most significant "accomplishment").
Trump certainly liked to tell his fans that he was working hard at it, and apparently they believed him. I supported any moves away from interventionism, even when he was criticized for them, but didn't see many of them. There were a few underwhelming troop withdrawals... But civilian deaths skyrocketed in the middle east after Trump took office, he loved selling arms to the Saudis to bomb Yemen, and clearly he didn't care that much about peace (Or was just unsurprisingly ignorant) associating with the likes of John Bolton and Erik Prince.
So Bahrain, the UAE, Sudan, Kosovo, and Morocco did not sign peace agreements and recognize Israel? That was all fake news?
And Pre3sident Trump did not stand up to rhe Chinese Communist Government over their treatment of their people? He spoke about this constantly, spoke out for the people of Hong Kong, spoke against the rampant slavery used to harvest cotton, and in his last full day in office he issued the declaration of the treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang as genocide. Of course, he was the first U.S. President to take office fully educated about Communist China.
Of course. The Dulles brothers were totally responsible for World War 1. One of the Dulles brothers was married to President Edith Wilson and got her to start World War 1! Thanks for pointing out this obvious fact!
And the Dulles brothers and Eisenhower were clearly responsible for Pearl Harbor. I didn't know that Eisenhower was a General in the Air Force and an Admiral in the Navy. Interesting for this to finally come out after 80 years! You urgently need to correct Wikipedia which falsely claims "he served under various generals and was promoted to the rank of brigadier general in 1941".
You've been a victim of the main stream media. Yes, conservatives lean towards supporting businesses. That's different than large media conglomerates that have monopoly power (google, facebook, amazon, twitter, etc) who are now partners with Democrats in the all out assault on free speech. As far as wars are concerned, the last official war was WW2, but that aside, I think we could easily argue that Obama, Bush, Clinton and Bush #11 got us all into "wars". The number of drone strikes unleashed by Obama, 540 by the way, far surpassed anything Trump ever did or any other President did.
Not sure what "real left means", but the "real left" in this country are doing the following:
- attacking free speech
- banning books they don't agree with
- promoting an identity politics agenda where everything is based on race
Name one group of people in the last 200 years that did those things with good intentions and positive outcomes?
"Real Conservatives" - which is most conservative I know, believe in personal liberties, smaller government (name one thing the government does efficiently - and you're not allowed to say "grow the government" - cause I'd agree, that's the only thing politicians do effectively), small and medium sized business success - the engine that powers our economy - or, at least it used to until the Democrats shut them all down over the last year, a merit based social construct where everyone has an opportunity to succeed if they work hard - not an equal outcome based utopia, and a belief that government is not here to protect us, it's here to protect our liberties.
The current shit show is the left's doing. The fact that you can't see that just shows how blind you are.
I'm glad you admit you don't know what "real left" means since from there you go on to cite real phenomena but use the wrong label. Your comment deserves a competent and thorough rebuttal, which you'll find at the link below:
"Not sure what "real left means", but the "real left" in this country are doing the following:" (followed by a list the left did not and would not do and has never condoned)
lol your entire post is pathetic. No socialist government (which is what left is) had any power in USA for the past 60 years, All of them either had right wing polices or hard core right wing policies. The issues with right wingers is that they will never accept their screw up, well it is all good by me, because at this point they have no choice but do. Globalization, Low corporate taxes, war mongering, private insurance, Citizens VS United all right wing ideas so try and protect them. Enjoy your shit show cause it is hereto stay :)
A typical liberal maneuver. Move the bar. In your fantasy land, left means socialism. Let's just look at the Democratic party platform:
1) Protect Americans from the Covid-19 pandemic. I don't need government to protect me from a pandemic. I need them to protect our liberties. The exact thing the Democrat party is tearing down day by day. Maybe you want a nanny state. I do not.
2) Building a stronger, fairer economy. Sounds good, but if you read their bs, it's all about the fairness of outcome and not opportunity. If that's not socialism, what is?
3) Achieving universal, affordable health care. Government controlled single payer health care. More government oversight. When has government done anything efficiently? Never.
4) Reforming our criminal justice system. Pull your head out of the sand and check out what's happened when defund the police has become a reality. Minneapolis, Seattle, SF, LA, and the grand daddy of them all: Portland, where the mayor is now begging to put money back into the police force. LA, where the DA is proposing to let out anyone who's already done 15 years of time - they are literally toasting him inside the prisons.
5) Healing the Soul of America. Again, sounds nice, but read further. It's really about combating systemic racism - whatever the hell that means. What it really means, is make everything about identity, and teach whitey how racist they are. And if anyone complains, then they get silenced.
6) Combating Climate crisis. That's just code for supporting a trillion dollar big business industry. Who's in bed with corporate america? Anyone spouting about climate crisis over and over again.
7) Creating a 21st Century Immigration System. Don't even need to read the text, you can just take a look at the "non-crisis" at the border. Democrats just view this as providing a path to citizenship for 30-40MM Democrat voters which they see as a path to one party rule for the next century.
8) Providing World Class Education for Every Zip Code. WHAT A COMPLETE JOKE. Who's keeping classrooms closed because the teachers unions rule them? Democrats. Who does this hurt the most? The poor. Democrats couldn't give two shits about children - they'd rather pay homage to the Teachers unions. Plus, it wouldn't look good to open schools because the orange man said we should do it.
9) Renewing American Leadership. Wow, we've got a doddering old fart who can't even remember who his Defense Secretary is, nor what the Defense Department is or does. That's some great renewing. They've also got Pelosi who's even older than Joe. What a refreshing renewal.
If that isn't a socialist platform, I don't know what is. But keep blaming it on the other side and live in your bubble with your double mask, face shield and endless supply of disinfectant.
Respectfully, I don't think you know what you are talking about. Your comment would be accurate if you changed it to "No CAPITALIST government had any power in USA for the past 60 years, All of them either had left wing polices or hard core left wing policies."
Capitalism is simply a system where you provide some goods and service of value and I pay you for it. We don't have capitalism and haven't had it in decades. What we have is a combination of crony capitalism, corporatism and socialism.
Socialism is what destroyed the black community where we have over 75% of black kids are born outside wedlock (used to be 25% back in the 60s) and the numbers for other races are climbing up too.
Corporatism and crony capitalism is where billion dollar companies are getting government subsidies and bail outs. The 2008 bail out wasn't capitalism. In a capitalist system, one would have let all those companies and banks which made horrible decisions go bankrupt. In a capitalist system, car companies (be it ICE based or electric based), oil companies etc won't be getting government subsidies.
You calling Globalization a "right wing" idea clearly shows you have no idea what Globalization. Right wingers hate Globalization and get called conspiracy theorists for saying so.
Low corporate taxes is right wing? Tell that to the Scandinavian countries which the left worships so much - they also have the lowest corporate income taxes. All Scandinavian countries’ corporate income tax rates are lower than the United States’ rate.
Why has Amazon being pushing for $15 minimum wage? Because they know they can afford it and get rid of small business competition which can't afford it. Liberal policies, just like welfare destroying the black community will also destroy small businesses and then claim that wasn't enough socialism.
War mongering is a right wing thing? Nope. It's an establishment thing.
By your logic, either Trump supporters - who are anti-globalists, anti wars are either all hard left or you do not know what these terms mean.
I am someone who watched Jimmy Dore and is a big fan of his - because he's an honest liberal. But I also think he's extremely misguided and doesn't understand that the very government he's calling corrupt, incompetent and bloated - he wants to give them even more power and manage people's health care, decide who owns guns and who speaks what.
"don't agree with but enjoy it" - now there's some entertaining moral gymnastics. The current "shit show" is most definitely the left's doing as illustrated in your parenthetical statement.
The people who are doing it, are not left, they are neo libs, which in any other country are center right, as in same BS economical and imperialist polices, but they pretend to be for minorities and LGBTQ and they use these items to censor their enemies, mostly real leftists, like Glenn for example. Where are the right wing honorable journalists? and why all of the right wingers here? Glenn is a socialist :). Just accept that there is no a single decent leader on right winger side. We don't have much either, but there is hope and we never had real power. Right wingers have been in power for the past 40 years (I include Clinton and Obama) to that too. neo Libs ate right wingers too, only much smarter in their cover up.
Right wingers have been in power for the past 40 years? Wow, that's a silly statement. But I guess if you define "left" and "right" counter to currently understood definitions it works.
100% I never cared for him, but the moment they caned him I new that is censorship and it is bad. As a proper leftist I believe in my ideas with my whole heart and want to win over people rather then censor anyone that I disagree with. Anyone who is for censorship has no faith in their ideas.
Sadly, nearly all people on all sides want "ignorant" or "crazy" opposition "lies" shut up ("cancelled") and only their "righteous truth" to be told. That was so even when the country was founded, but the popular majority of anti-federalist farmers forced our Bill of Rights for protection from Federalist Party elite bankers, merchants, and attorneys. Those elite then too "knew what was best for everyone [particularly themselves]."
"Left" and "right" are arbitrary measurements which depend completely on how you draw the axis. Concepts like classical liberal, conservative or fiscal conservative are less arbitrary, but ONLY if you define them carefully. +With appropriate definitions+, I can then say that I am classically liberal, libertarian-leaning republican, fiscal conservative, conservative, and (old) whiggish (think Burke or John Adams) without any particular conflict. Does that make me "right" or "left"?
"I am not altogether on anybody’s side, because nobody is altogether on my side, if you understand me..." -- Treebeard
"Left" and "right" are arbitrary measurements which depend completely on how you draw the axis."
however, it's wrong. See the lower part of this excellent erudite write up of the terms Left and Right, where the come from and what they mean - the discussion begins after the graphing dialogue:
The "axis" can only be drawn one way, a horizontal line segment.
The leftmost endpoint is 100% State control/power, 0% individual freedom. Think Fascism (Third Reich) or Communist dictatorship (Xi in China today).
The rightmost point is 0% State, 100% individual freedom. Think Anarchy, an unstable, short-lived phenomena as individuals start banding together for protection and progress. True Capitalism (classical liberalism) is just to the left of the rightmost endpoint, let's say ~10% State (think military, police, courts of law) and ~90% individual freedom (the rights of life, liberty, and individual property ownership, collective property ownership by legal corporatioons that are owned by individual stockholders).
Where a society resides on this well-defined axis is determined by a political process, sometimes involving use of force, think "war is politics by other means," and gang/faction violence/terrorism, but usually by debate and some sort of vote, resulting in founding/defining public documents (constitutions) and rules (laws). Changes to a society's position on this well-defined axis are likewise determined over time by the same political processes, the nature of which can also change over time.
U.S today is still a mixed economy around the midpoint (public sector about 50% of whole as measured by GDP), but starting to move faster towards the left, as it has been moving for roughly 160 years, because the political system has been corrupted by the fact that the political party ostensibly for moving right (towards more individual freedom), the GOP, has fooled those voting for moving right, and instead it has just moved left a little bit slower than the party that is for moving left, the Democrats.
In 2016, unbeknownst to the voters themselves, the voters rejected this two party 160 yr. old system, that was failing to provide the voters with a choice of actually moving right, by electing a flawed, almost equally ignorant, non-politician who, surprise, surprise, actually tried to move the nation to the right by following through on what those GOP voters have wanted for 160 years, instead of just moving left a little slower than the other party that had become scary good at accelerating to the left.
I know, confusing, but not really THAT complicated.
Classical liberals (GG, me, Founders, Hayek, von Mises, Friedman, Capitalists) want to move right because we are too far left and heading to Authoritarian Socialism (say ~80% State control, very little individual freedom), to the glee of neo-liberals, who stole the word liberal from its classical understanding of true individual liberty.
Why don't you ask yourself whether it was "leftist" or "rightist" policies, politicians and judges who were responsible for the silicon valley giants and major media CORPORATIONS to acquire the power they have to censor and de-platform. Was it "leftists" who authored the Powell Memo or "leftists" who fought for the rights of monopolies over the rights of workers? The powers held by these corporations-as-people were conferred to them by more than a century of RIGHTist pro-corporate groups and individuals. Where were people like you complaining about these monopolistic, corporate, oligarch owned entities before Alex Jones got de-platformed? Nowhere, that's where.
That was my point -- there is a tremendous confusion of meaning of both terms -- liberal and neo-liberal -- there is no meaningful discussion if words can bend like hot dogs in various people minds... ;-))
The Reagan administration did a lot in response to AIDS.
Indeed Dr Fauci was in charge of NIAID at NIH during the 1980s.
From November 1986 in the Washington Post:
"Under Fauci's leadership, however, the role of the rejuvenated infectious diseases institute [NIAID] has grown, particularly in large-scale testing of new AIDS drugs.
"The NIAID budget for AIDS jumped from $ 297,000 in fiscal 1982 to $ 63 million in 1986, and $ 146 million is estimated for 1987, accounting for more than one-quarter of the institute's projected $ 545 million budget and nearly 60 percent of NIH's funding for AIDS. The NIAID will spend more than twice as much this year on AIDS work as the NCI."
The kind of left that gets rich or takes over corporations and embraces (as many of them do) capitalism for themselves, but not for you, because you can't be trusted with it.
The New Left and the Old Left are not the same. The New Left is comprised of race baiting, corporate-loving, narcissistic authoritarian conformists. The Old Left were primarily individualist, freedom loving, colorblind rebels. The New Left has banished the Old Left to the hinterlands for the moment.
Who passes the criteria – TYT, Intercept, corp. media, Congress/Senate -- certainly NOT. Anything still missing on my list?
Interestingly, a rising star in DNC in 2015, who was “excommunicated” after declaring for socialist Bernie and not for corrupt queen Hillary (who brazenly named her “Russian asset” after Tulsi demolished Hillary’s protégé Kamala Harris), Tulsi Gabbard, passes most of my progressive criteria. While most opponents of DNC cabal would meekly “bring chocolates” to Pelosi and Schumer, here is the truly epic and exceptional Tulsi’s response:
“Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton . You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly”.
Dem Party is beyond salvation – a viable third (and fourth..) party is THE solution.
Good news- we agree. Both parties are corrupt beyond salvation and need be replaced as I indicated in my other comment. My actual preference would be to eliminate all political parties. The founding fathers of America correctly believed that political parties would lead to partisan conflict that would threaten the country. Today's climate has proven them prescient. But getting rid of both parties without replacement may be a step too far for the sheeple.
I've been a liberal my entire life, but I've never been a Democrat. The best way to fight black and white thinking is to not subscribe to it in the first place.
"Dem Party is beyond salvation – a viable third (and fourth..) party is THE solution."
In 2016, I was *praying* that, first, Trump (given his temperament) would split off to form a third party, but then Bernie -- if he was serious about "revolution" -- would then split for a *fourth* party.
Well, it was the TPTB who obviously heard my prayers ... and took corrective action on both of them.
If you understood the EXTREME difficulty of building any physical organization to take on the two existing parties here in America, not to mention the required re-education of masses of voters then you would understand the near impossibility of the task.
One has to "take over" an existing structure.
That is what is happening with Trump and the GOP as well as the "progressives" and the Democrats.
As someone who organized campaigns for over three decades at a state level I can tell you that when those machines are "turned in" they are fearsome.
Thank you - I value your expertise. However, why do you think that those fearsome machines would be easier to realign from inside?
Why not support the GOP's launching a challenge to the Electoral College vote -- the way Dems launched one each time they lost over the last 30 years (2000, 2004, 2016), for example.
The Democratic Party is a dictatorship of billionaire donors and arms and intelligence industry interests -- nothing that benefits the 99% of population is relevant to it.
By far the highest interest of Biden government and its DNC cabal is that Russia-gate immense hoax – the scam of the century -- will NOT / will NEVER be exposed. Hence immense obligations to primary propagandists for their roles, including despicable Kamala Harris (Hillary’s protégé), Neera Tanden, Melissa Hodgman (wife of the Comey’s infamous Peter Strzok), Pete Buttigieg, etc,
Yes, that was very disappointing. Ditto for dropping charges against Google (that was a very interesting first deplatforming attempt by big tech, I wonder if she had pursued it more and made a bigger stink about it if Dorsey would be brave enough to censor Trump for example) and letting slide Hillary with the smear. Even so, all around her balance is positive and who knows - she may reenter politics at some point. It would certainly be a welcome change.
The “left” just allegedly got more presidential votes than in the history of our country. If the left left the DNC then who the hell voted for Gropin Joe?
I think it’s now hard to figure out what even is the left or liberal. The same way they have destroyed terms like white supremacy and racism and threat to democracy, same way, terms like liberal don’t mean anything in today’s world. People are claiming to be liberal while calling for censorship. That’s contradicting but unfortunately these people are too dumb to recognize that they aren’t liberal one bit. They are fascists.
Also I do wish there were at least a few from the “left” who had defended Milo, Alex Jones etc. Even tulsi only started talking about censorship when it happened to her (by Google ads and media calling her russian agent). Before then, she stayed silent.
The “right” on the other hand including trump supporters were defending not just tulsi and Alex Jones and Milo, they were even defending Bernie freaking Sanders when he got cheated out twice by the DNC.
Lol. When has the freedom caucus ever called for censorship? The left spent four years shrieking the Trump was a "fascist" even though he never did or said anything to support those charges. Trump stands for individualism and federalism. The left and democrats insist on collectivism and authoritarianism.
A fascist dictator would need media cover, educational institution cover, Hollywood cover, pop culture cover, Big tech cover, federal judge cover, union cover, the whole machine cover to get away with it. We all know who has all of that.
Remember when she went and showed support for Biden in the elections? All that anti war stuff went out the window. At least Jimmy Dore called her out for that.
Tulsi was the one politician who could have spearheaded the left/right synthesis ...instead..she cravenly supported Old Joe who represented everything she supposedly stood against.
Oh what could have been!
A Tongan American Hindu warrior truth telling warrior queen afraid of being tainted by the right.
I admit I wasn't happy about that, but MAYBE she felt she had reason to believe Trump was a lot worse than Biden.
They were / are BOTH shitty, so I'm not going to blame anyone for picking either; for myself, I voted Green Party instead of either of those crappy people. ...I'd like to see a LOT MORE people have the gumption to vote for OTHER THAN D or R - if we did so in massive numbers it would change U.S. politics overnight.
I don't think the "Republican party" is. Majority of the constituents are yes. But majority of the politicians aren't. Majority of republican politicians are incompetent cucks.
This is propaganda from the ultra-rich: "socialist/communist on the left."
Further, the current Democratic Party is right-wing, right where the Republicans were in 1980. The current Republican Party is in batshitcrazy territory.
It's much more useful for the politicians to divide us along "left" and "right", when the actual divide is between collectivist and individualist. Unfortunately, there are useful idiots on both sides of the political aisle that are more than eager to cover for their idols, thus distracting us from the real problems.
The divide is not between "collectivist and individualist" -- no, that's what they want us to think. But both of these things are not only compatible but absolutely necessary values to have in a democratic republic, as both are complementary components of human nature. The real issue is, and always has been, prioritization between those two.
The former was for much of the 20th century (now long gone) more or less convincingly represented by Democrats, the latter by Republicans. The spin doctors in each party have always used each value to accused the other party of failing to live up to "We the People". Meanwhile, because collectivism and individualism are necessary and complentary values, the Democratic Party and Republican Party can never be killed by mere third parties. It's a perfect scam.
The divide that matters *now* is democracy (however implemented), vs anti-democracy. Don't confuse that with L vs R, the two halves that can never be a whole alone.
I'll probably invite a crapstorm with this, but democracy is highly overrated and frankly, I couldn't really care less about voter turnout and other useless metrics of democratic participation. Mob rule is no better than any other authoritarian system. A constitutional republic on the other hand, is worth preserving. Unfortunately, I think in the case of the USA, we're merely preserving its corpse.
As far as balance between individualism and collectivism and the ideas of the social contract go, I'll just leave you with some words of wisdom from its creator, Rousseau.
“whoever refuses to obey the general will will be forced to do so by the entire body; this means merely that he will be forced to be free.”
“The state … ought to have a universal compulsory force to move and arrange each part in the manner best suited to the whole.” And if the leaders of the state say to the citizen, “‘it is expedient for the state that you should die,’ he should die.”
I have nothing against our democratic republic. I support it. Your understanding appears to have been corrupted by the current fashion on the right to conflate "democracy" with "pure democracy". Democracy (per Merriam-Webster) is "government by the people". Are you one of the people? As in "We the People"?
In any case, regarding your assertion that "democracy is highly overrated": Someday, I suspect you'll wonder how the waterline for nearly all participation rose above your head. By "participation", I mean your anywhere -- forget voting, and think of any and all activities you have in business and in life. It's a-comin'. This article of Glenn's is about just one dimension.
Democracy is merely a mechanism. A constitutionally limited government that respects individual rights is the goal. One may argue that the latter is not possible without the former, but it is unwise to ignore the dangers that democracy can pose on its own.
The elevation of democracy to that of a sacred term above all others in our society endangers all of our rights. 51% does not a morality make.
No, it's not "current fashion on the right to conflate "democracy" with "pure democracy"."
How can you even say that? As if people who correct it are just following some meaningless fad?
If you asked the younger generation, most won't be able to even tell you a difference. That's one of the main reasons AOC and her followers have been calling for things like abolishing the electoral college. Abolishing the electoral college will bring full on democracy - mob rule where 51% rule over the 49%. California and New York gets to rule over everyone else.
It is very important to correct people when they want democracy and explain to them the dangers of one.
I wish US had electoral college even in the states and cities.
I see the divide most simply as: The ultra-rich, their puppets, henchmen, and sycophants (the true "right") vs absolutely everybody else ("We, The People" but also the true "left").
If we leave out the stuff I put in parenthesis, whoever calls themselves right or left can likely see the truth of the statement - at least, those who are the "We. The People" category.
BTW, you can also call this "oligarchy vs some-form-of-democracy", if you like - it amounts to the same thing.
Or the Deplorables (the elitist globalist, corporate-fascists) vs. those who want nothing but TRUE Freedom and Liberty (everyone else who isn't an elitists globalist, corporate-fascist).
Someone, of course, already *did call them "philosopher kings", as well you know, and I *still cherish the qualifications upon which Plato insisted in order to "vet" those who would be politicians.
In the Athenian democracy, similar to the much later U.S. Democracy, "people" were defined for voting purposes as "free, white, male, landowners, over age 21."
Plato reasonably argued that *landowners would suffer financial losses by ignoring the maintenance of their farms while they took years away from home to come to Athens to perform a public service by sitting in the Senate, etc. And yet, of course, even now, we have people spending in excess of a quarter of a *billion dollars plus in their frantic attempt to secure a job (POTUS) that pays about a quarter million dollars a year in salary.
To counter this clearly suspicious phenomenon, Plato proposes in his work "The Republic", that we insist that the ONLY people we allow into office are those people who can PROVE that they really do NOT want the job at all !
That was roughly 2,400 years ago, but it is *still a solid idea ! :-D
YOU, in your individualism, haven't any chance whatsoever of overcoming the chains and yoke the ultra-rich have already set on your shoulders.
Wake up, dude, this is a "class war" and the ultra-rich are winning. You could stop supporting them, you know, by changing your tune and 1) stop attacking other non-rich people and 2) realize that collective action is REQUIRED for us to regain control over the ultra-rich.
Otherwise,they're going to bring the vast majority of the entire current biosphere, including humanity, to extinction since they know no moderation - demonstrably.
You are helping our oppressors. WAY TO GO! -face-palm-
Yes, of course, collectivism is the only way to fight collectivism.
I may choose to join with others in a struggle against those who wish to deprive me of my natural rights, but I do not cede my rights to those I am joining with any more than I do to those who currently violate those rights.
Your mistake is thinking that you can replace one collectivist system with another and retain your freedoms when collectivist systems always deny the rights of the individual and make your own person the property of the state.
And you misidentify the problem. The rich aren't my oppressors. They don't possess the power to imprison me, to invade my home without a warrant, to seize my assets, to take my children from me, to send me off to war in the name of the state, to prevent me from trading freely.... The government holds the monopoly on force. And it is from that power that all else flows.
Certainly, the rich and powerful collude with government to fulfill their desires, but it is the government that holds the actual power. Don't believe me? Consider for a moment that the rich have only one tool to work with, money. Now consider that the government controls the value of that money thru printing and they can seize it at will like FDR did with physical gold during the Depression or any number of fortunes seized during the War on Drugs. Ask Jack Ma how his money protected him... oh wait, you can't.
If society doesn’t protect the rich, than everyone becomes poor? If society doesn’t protect the poor, then society is meaningless and will be overthrown
I feel that power resides in the collective as the first cause of power. However, that the community is better served to take that power and distribute it to individuals as much as possible
You are exactly right about this. You were spot-on when you drew the line between liberty/free thinking and authoritarianism.
What I am seeing is so-called conservatives like David French, Bill Kristol and the like joining up with those on the Left calling for suppression.
What this is comes down to, at least in part, to those who see themselves as part of the Elect (thanks, John McWhorter) flexing their muscles to put sinners in their place. I know you are not a Trump fan, but he was emblematic of this--he threatened their grip on all the levers of power and control, and so he had to be destroyed.
Both groups of oligarchs that rule us - DNC and GOP - are equally repulsive and hopeless. We need to unite for a third party -- it will not win for decades but we need to break out of current monopoly.
Nope, it comes down to those who believe their choices should be exported to the "unwashed infidels" and those who prefer to let people make their own choices, even when they might be "suboptimal."
And how is this not an issue of power and control? The non-Elect, the infidels, the peasants, the serfs...we must be told what to think, because allowing us to think for ourselves threatens the ecclesial hierarchy (and it IS a religion). We must be controlled, lest the Elect lose their exalted positions.
I think most people on the right would agree, that free speech is deeply rooted on the left or in liberalism. But very few on the left are standing up for it today. There should be a massive torrent coming forward, instead, it is a trickle.
Free speech is rooted in CLASSICAL liberalism (Capitalism), as stated in the Declaration, and implemented in the Constitution. The Left today is NEO-liberalism (Statism, the OPPOSITE of Capitalism. Capitalism demands a SMALL State). The Left today is FOR censorship, FOR Authoritarian Socialism, FOR the destruction of free market Capitalism, FOR the destruction of individual freedom.
And you are mis-defining The Left, as Leftists throughout history have found it necessary to do, in order to grow the State, at the expense of the freedom of the individual.
This is both false, and a perfect summary of what the propaganda of the ultra-rich has been trying to get the "right leaning" population to believe. In short, you have taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker, of what they want you to believe.
That article gives the origin and full evolution of the political terms Left, Right, and Liberal, and touches on the more modern usage of Neo-Liberal and Neo-Conservative as well.
The title is: The Left / Right Dichotomy, the Meanings of Left, Right & Liberal, and U.S. Politics Today
It's rather long but here's the "table of contents":
U.S. Politics Today
Shortcomings of the left-vs-right dichotomy
Propagandistic Manipulation
Relativism
Centrism
Freedom & Liberty
Origin and Evolution of the terms left, right, and liberal in politics
The original Right's opposition to original Liberalism
Early Left opposition to Liberalism
Mid 1800s
Marxist opposition to Liberalism
Rise of the modern Right
The emergence of modern politics
Left and Right in relation to Liberalism and each other
The Recent Re-Definition of Left
Liberalism and Neo-Liberalism vs Left
Alternative Systems to the left vs right linear continuum
The Political Compass
The Rational Spectrum
I recommend you read the whole thing. I'm 100% sure you'll learn more than you expect to.
It's my perception that a huge fraction of the actual left doesn't engage in social media like the neo-liberals do, so we don't see as much of it and have fewer opportunities to visibly respond. However, the left people I know all talk about this among ourselves and where we can outreach - like in comment sections - and universally decry what's going on now with cancel culture and this neo-liberal bullshit.
"I don't even begin to understand what you mean by "the actual left.""
Yes, it's very clear from your postings you don't understand what the left actually is.
The left is what brought you the 5 day work week with a 2 day weekend, the 8 hour work day (so far as we can keep that in this day and age), public education (as opposed to no educattion for the masses), and I could go on. Today, to distinguish ourselves from that heinous NOT left bullshit brought about by, for example, the fans of Hillary Clinton, the Neo-Liberals, we often call ourselves Progressives. We are FOR THE PEOPLE and advocate policies that help the people (as opposed to the oligarchs and the insanely rich).
I would have much more respect for progressives if they just fought for the people in an honorable way. Instead, you allow what you call neoliberals to represent you and use the tools of hatred and envy you likely claim to not use or believe, all for their own agenda. It happens on the right as well. It just isn’t nearly as destructive to society.
It would greatly benefit the progressive left to demarcate what you would be willing to accept. Otherwise, us producers on the right are never going to believe your motives pure and that you are doing nothing more than trying to take what someone else worked for. It is never ending. We have gone from child labor to a welfare state and now UBI in a hundred years. The entitlement, a concept foreign to me, is through the roof. Half the county wants something for nothing and is willing to ignore their activist representatives burning down entire city blocks and ruining lives.
Many on the right now believe you want us all dead. With all the insane societal destructive things neoliberals are pushing it is getting harder to think otherwise. That was likely the neoliberal’s plan from the beginning and RINO’s were a part of it.
Progressives need to wise up and realize there will be nothing left if the UniParty succeeds. For example, why in the world would a progressive be in favor of disarming law abiding citizens leaving only criminals and the state with arms? This position alone makes me question the sanity of the entire movement. Are they really so naive and gullible as to think they will let you live after that?
He means these people most likely. Elitists that would never vote non Democrat yet have the sanity to see the authoritarianism they voted for destroying their children’s minds. They whisper in the dark amongst themselves about how this could have come to pass oblivious to the fact their votes ushered it in.
Yes, this IS true! I was at Michigan state even in mid-70's and the political science teacher was teaching Marxism and when I raised my hand to debate with him, he literally IGNORED me. Even then. This has been creeping up. They are free speech AS LONG AS IT IS THEIR SPEECH. Otherwise, it could always be shut down. Still, they did have a point in Berkley back then...
Marxism is a Janus monster. On the one hand, it oh so passionately complains about the oppressed. On the other hand, it won't let them do anything about it. Not on their own, that is. "Stand back! The experts have arrived! We'll take over from here, thank you very much!" I'm surprised they haven't been laughed out of existence. But I suppose it works because it's actually a psy-op.
Yes! That's why Lula in Brazil Is NOT a Castro or Lenin, who confiscated (State theft) private property. Lula MAY have engaged in corruption, and give lip service to Marxism/communism, but he is no oppropriator of private property, THE worst aspect of Bolshevik/Bolivar revolution. Lula is a (small d) democrat, in that he will respect democracy, and leave office if he loses.
At San Diego State, where I attended and graduated from, conservative speakers were regularly chased from campus - with the tacit approval of the administration. I was suspended from the school newspaper for violating an "unwritten rule" against running offensive letters to the editor. Yes, we had a a YAF chapter at SDSU, but we also had a SPEC chapter that actively tried to ban military and corporate recruiters from campus. In fact, left-wing activists managed to get the Avalon Hill wargaming club banned! (They changed their name from the "Wargaming Club" to the "Conflict Resolution Club" and had no more problems when playing their favorite board games, as I recall.) So far as I know, YAF was the one invoking the 1st Amendment. It certainly wasn't SPEC.
There were also attempts at the same time at UC San Diego to have the California Review newspaper banned from campus for daring to run conservative content.
Oh, and my sophomore year, I was taking a creative writing class for my English minor, and the instructor (not a professor) pulled me aside and said my Air Force ROTC uniform was "offensive" and I needed to change before class each Tuesday. I told her that would not happen - at which point she told me that if I insisted on wearing the uniform, the best grade I could hope for was a C. She was honest, at least - I got a C that class.
Oh bull. Your occupation DOES enter into it. And we are talking about major universities -- this was happening in the 70's at any major university. I'm sure some smaller colleges were conservative, but it was already on the march. YOU "prove" you are right! What arrogance.
Wally, I'd like to know what kind of work allowed you to gather such an incorrect impression. By 1990, the left had all but taken over the major west coast university where I worked. They started writing articles about "White Male Dinosaurs" in the university paper, and soon thereafter there were calls for censorship of any critical view "that created a chilly climate for feminist research."
I published an article stating that all research should be subject to criticism, and soon faced calls for my resignation, hate mail in my inbox, two attempts to set fire to my office, a mysterious cancellation of a research grant, and direct reprisals *against my children*. That was w
Dear Substack: The ONLY reason I visit your website is to read authors like Greenwald who are able to publish real journalism here. If any of the authors I subscribe to are censored or pressured to change ANY of their content, I will immediately cancel my subscriptions and follow those authors to whatever platform they choose.
Me too! In a heartbeat, faster a heart beat!
Likewise. I really do hope the decision-makers at Substack read your comment. I have already dumped facebook and twitter for participating in the censorship crusade and I would dump Substack in a heartbeat if they join in to censor Greenwald and Taibbi.
Indeed, this is why I refuse to subscribe to Medium or give them one thin dime. They censor and shadow ban. Not one penny will they ever see from me. I'm starting to find more interesting content on Substack anyway.
Thank you, Van.
Does anyone know if the powers that be at Substack are talking this call for censorship seriously?
Yup. Best keep this in mind.
Me too. Just subscribed to support this important work.
No, Glenn, you're wrong. It is the very definition of Left vs. Right. It's a war that the Left has declared against the Right. They use "right-wing" as if it's a smear. They can kiss my ass, it's a badge of honor. At least, I have honor and I'm not a Left-wing piece of shit like them.
ALL of the canceling, the censoring, and the silencing is coming from THE LEFT. I know that you're not a fearful journalist, so call them out and don't try to give us this both sides are bad bullshit.
One side is bad. It's evil. It's the LEFT.
Do better. I expect more from you.
The free speech movement in the 20th century was driven by left-wing politics. Many of the key First Amendment decisions on which I relied as a free speech lawyer were written by the court's left-wing members. ACLU lawyers who represented the NRA, the KKK and Christian students did so in the name of leftism. The free speech movement started at Berkeley. Many of the campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s to censor were done in the name of social conservatism by groups like the Moral Majority and other pro-Reagan organization. Many on the left vehemently oppose online censorship, while people on the right have supported some (see here (https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/) and here: https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/.
I agree that the bulk of the most recent censorship campaigns have been directed at the right, but by no means all (the writers Broderick identified as needing moderation are almost exclusively ones who identify as liberals). Don't make the mistake of reducing support for the cause of free speech by insisting that it is only a right-wing crusade.
I know that it was pushed by the liberal forces on the Left. We all benefited greatly from that. But the Left is no longer liberal.
Oh, I most definitely do "mistake" it as solely a right wing crusade. Please name all of the left-wing commentators/politicians who are standing up against cancel culture or even one who spoke up in defense of Alex Jones.
He was the first to be deplatformed and the success of that first one without one peep in his defense got the snowball rolling. It's ABSOLUTELY one sided.
Left and liberal are distinct political philosophies that do not agree on key foundational beliefs.
This has been a huge problem in finding way to work with conservatives. Too many refuse to accept the left is not a monolith.
Even within Marxism, which is just one of many traditions in socialism, there's a huge range of ideas and schools of thought with lots of major disagreements.
Liberalism? It's an entirely different ideology with different goals.
This is a universal problem. I tend to lean more right logistically although I'm open to anything that sounds like a positive and productive solution or a program that benefits humanity and expands human liberty. All for the conversation. But strongly partisan and ideological people see the other side as a monolith, very consistently.
It's a problem I've found intractable. If you're on the left, a majority on the right make huge assumptions about your views on a host of issues because you believe certain typically liberal or leftist things on a small set of topics. If you're on the right, the same thing from the other angle. So many conversations about one thing turn into "that makes you just like Trump" or "I guess you like kids being in cages" . . . and other stuff often of no relevance to the original discussion.
Because people are prone to view individuals through a lens of group membership. Alas. In the modern era, it is not productive. But it tends to be what we do.
Libertarians learned long ago that you have to work with anybody who agrees with you on the issue you're trying to tackle, or you won't get anywhere.
I don't care WHY you're against the war on drugs as long as you fight against it beside me. We can worry about the other stuff at another time.
Of course it helps a few people if we're all screaming at one another instead of talking.
This is an astute observation. It is why the two-party political system we have is no longer working. Once people become part of one "tribe", they will become tribal. We need to somehow get rid of the GOP and Democrat parties, or at a minimum, have some alternate options with some real influence. I am in favor of a new party that represents working class citizens with traditional American values. I have not been successful though, in convincing many other people....
You remind me of Glenn's interview with Nathan Robinson, and Nathan's refusal to accept any ideological diversity among conservatives.
So you're right this is a thought problem to which the Left isn't immune.
But true liberals support free speech.. I mean, at its core isn't it a "liberal" idea?
Free speech is central to political liberalism, you are correct. It's just that liberals seem to have decided they'll throw the political away to protect their economic liberalism.
Which, for me, is the essence of fascism.
At its core it is a GOD given right.
My personal definition of "liberal" is live and let live. California used to be the very heart of this philosophy until thoughts and feelings were elevated above all other considerations. Alas, I am now a former Californian, deeply troubled by the contortions our professional political class has subjected to the concept and reality of liberalism.
I took the Red Pill, and no longer consider myself anything other than a conservative.
Exactly. True liberals (or leftists) are distinct from the modern "cancel culture" CORPORATE liberals and NEOliberals that control outlets like most major media and newspapers.
Sure, so long as the words still mean the same thing they did a decade ago or a year ago or last week.
True liberals do. This is one of those places I expect Art or Mona to show up and violently point out that the DNC is not "liberal" anymore.
It's balanced in a way. Many/most harder left pretend the tiny few NSDAP imitators, scattered anti-semites, and also tiny white supremacist groups are representative of the "right." At least they perpetually show those in their extremely prejudiced propaganda.
"The left", especially the 'harder left" doesn't have any propaganda.
You're thinking of Neo-Liberals - THEY have propaganda, and power, while the left does not.
If you disagree, read up: http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
Defending Alex Jones from the left? Here's a few: Jimmy Dore for one. Kyle Kulinski, Ben Norton, Krystal Ball, Max Blumenthal...
Defending the rights of an Alex Jones to express his opinions, however toxic they may be, is NOT the equivalent of "defending Alex Jones". That is precisely the kind of false equivalency being used to attack ALL non-corporate media, as Mr. Greenwald has clearly stated above.
There are laws against free speech that result in harm. So, the current popular argument that people like Jones need to be muzzled because they're encouraging said harm to be done are specious.
Either all of us are free to speak our minds, or none of us are. That such a simple principle of human rights should even need to be discussed is terrifying.
Defending Alex Jones' rights to speak in the public square is a necessary part of defending that right for yourself and everyone else.
It's really not that hard to understand.
Liz, you've nailed it. For those who object to Jones, or anyone else, the best approach is to voice your objection, not silence those you oppose.
Well said, Liz! Very well said.
I hope you will indulge a personal anecdote. Back in the day, Bill O'Reilly would sometimes interview people with absolutely outrageous views. He'd end the interview saying something like: "Thanks for being on the Factor and I respect your opinion."
That drove me nuts, and I finally sent him a note telling him that respect for an opinion is a high complement, and the words "I respect your opinion" should not be flung around indiscrimently the way Tinker Bell flings pixie dust. Those words should be reserved for opinions that are worth respecting.
When dealing with an opinion that does NOT deserve respect, if he must comment on it and and feels compelled to be polite, he should instead say: "I respect your right to your opinion."
Within 3 days, he's stopped using the word "respect" altogether.
To be fair - when I think of defending someone's fundamental human right to free speech, I am talking about someone who will ask people to not vote for the party at all which has been advocating for censorship. Neither of them have done that. They still want people like AOC who advocates for censorship and making lists of Trump supporters to be in power. To me free speech and being anti-critical race theory are two important things.
Ps. I am a Jimmy Dore fan even though I disagree with him on most of policies. I think he's misguided.
I tend to agree with Glenn. This isn't left vs right (as much as it might look like that). This is progressive vs. non-progressive. Or "far-left vs. everybody-an-inch-to-the-right-of far, far left". Liberalism and even leftism used to include valuing of free speech and individual liberty--the government was supposed to stay out of your womb and your bedroom and your private conversations and so on. There are some old school liberals who still believe that, and some who do stand up to what's going on. And there will be more as eventually all sort of liberals and even pretty-far-lefties will be dragged into struggle sessions and be deplatformed for inadequate purity.
And right and left are labels. Sometimes distracting. What we need right now is more Glenn Greenwalds. Don't really care what label they apply to themselves.
The left has been captured and brainwashed by corporate media. I grew up in the 1960s and Noam Chomsky was in the news all the time. I remember the values I grew up with but most people don’t. Corporate left knows that actual left-wing people have nowhere to go because of the entrenched two party system. My family thinks they are liberal but they are advocating for censorship and they think I’m the one who’s brainwashed when I talk about Glenn Greenwald or Chris Hedges. So at this point people like me have to team up with some of the smarter right wing people who are also against censorship. The New York Times has brainwashed everybody, as much as Fox News has.
It's all corporate media. And so easily manipulated. And always beholden to its advertisers. Fox might be willing to criticize Obama but when it comes to Big Pharma who pays most of their bills? Heck, no.
It would and probably is happening to other networks--NewsMax, OANN and the rest of the right-wing or alternative news, if they get an audience, can be taken over the exact same way.
The brainwashing is mostly thinking that what any of these corporate news organizations covers is actually news, irrespective of the partisan bent of one or the other.
Agreed. When I go on a supposedly Socialist site like Common Dreams, and 95% of posters are pushing Biden and the Democrats, that ain't left-wing. I understand some Right populists, Repubs are eyeing the new pro union bill. They've got to get voters from somewhere, and the Rust Belt voters who left the Dems for Trump have unions in their blood. Anyway, it is a sign of some positive oldtimey lefty movement!
Same in my family... ;-))
BTW - there is no "corporate left" -- only mouthpieces for DNC oligarchs
What group preaching socialism hasn't had oligarchs running the show from their high seats of hypocrisy?
The horshoe
Horseshoe? or whoreshoe?
Or horrorshoe, horrorshow?
Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski, to name two.
We don't need to do Jay's homework for him. Plenty of leftists and liberals denounce censorship in entirely even-handed ways. Jay bought some stupid media talking point and is asking us to debunk. But I think the burden of evidence is on Jay to prove it.
You're right it's usually futile to respond to people not acting in good faith. I still try on occasion, hoping for something positive.
That’s a bullshit way of asserting the unproven. It’s a message board, a non consequential conversation and limp dick here is like who? Who? Plenty that’s who. I don’t need to do your homework in this conversation.
You’re a sanctimonious limp dicked prick asswipe
Is it non consequential though? I have had my mind changed by comments here before. Who knows, I could end up becoming president.
💯
If only the leftists in positions of power stood up for free speech, as opposed to comedians whose livelihoods depend on it. This is Glenn’s point is it not? Or are the anti free speech anti civil rights statists at these most powerful media companies not leftist?
Personally, I find this label argument that everyone one of these comment sections turn into a, tiresome. It is the same people making the same arguments and nothing is ever settled.
All that matters is what they people with guns believe and that is why they are trying so hard to take them away from us plebes that continue to think for ourselves.
What leftists are in positions of power? If you are even just a little bit moderately progressive then they won't even hide all the dirty tricks, cheats, smears and fraud they use to deny you power.
Yes, all of two. They are not in power and are never going to be. Dore is making noises about giving up. Chomsky will be dead soon enough, and nobody listened to him, either. The distinctive character of the new left is it's very clear adoption of and sympathy for communist thought and methods.
George Galloway. Caleb Maupin. Max Blumenthal. Aaron Mate. There's no shortage.
all equally Ineffectual who in any case could be easily canceled at any time should that status ever change.
Who?
LOL. Name those among "the new left" are advocating for nationalization of industries and collectivization of agriculture? I'll agree with you that this group seems authoritarian, but this can be either left or right (which is Glenn's point).
It can be left or right or theory, but, today, in practice, it's left.
Socialism is the future of humanity ;-))
True. Humans are stupid and will fuck up anything good. See Garden of Eden. The future is bleak.
To be fair - when I think of defending someone's fundamental human right to free speech, I am talking about someone who will ask people to not vote for the party at all which has been advocating for censorship. Neither of them have done that. They still want people like AOC who advocates for censorship and making lists of Trump supporters to be in power. To me free speech and being anti-critical race theory are two important things.
Ps. I am a Jimmy Dore fan even though I disagree with him on most of policies. I think he's misguided.
I've disagreed with YOU about a lot of things, but I agree with your statement here about critical-race-theory; it's a disaster.
Cheers! :)
I was writing mine when you posted! LOLZ
Jay, it's not acceptable to demand that we disprove your assertions. It's your job to show us that your assertions are valid or stfu.
Every self respecting leftist like Glenn objected for that idiot losing his job. I, as hardcore leftist, hated it, since i knew it was wrong and they will come after real left soon enough. real left has no power, but at least we keep fighting. What about right wingers? Corporate power, Citizens VS United are all right wing ideas, so take responsibility I suppose. To be honest i absolutely enjoy the misery that is befallen to right wing people (don't agree with that but enjoy it). Right wingers have been the staunchest supporters of war and capitalism and now they are paying the price for their mess ups. The shit show is not left's doing, we tried to warn all of you, but you wouldn't listen.
So Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F., Kennedy were all right wing!! Amazing!!They started the wars involving the U.S. in the 20th century.
And Donald Trump is left wing!! Even more amazing!! He is the first President in decades not to start a war. And he worked hard to withdraw our troops from other countries. And he promoted peace in the Middle East, successfully.
What is really astonishing is that some very high ranking military people admitted (virtue signaled) that they resisted and in some cased outright disobeyed some of Trumps efforts to deescalate or drawdown troops in some areas. The military/industrial complex is not an idea it is an actual structured, operational hidden organization dedicated to feeding the sons and daughters of America into the maw of never ending wars to make MONEY and keep their power. Dismantling this monster would take a revolution that well fed and satisfied Americans nave no real stomach for. Its' very existence all around the globe is the reason that torroism keeps expanding and popping up like mushrooms after a rainstorm. They need one another.
it is a cancer that is metastazing and gradually eating up this country from the inside. I wonder at what point will the budget be enough to "defend" the US? At 1 trillion? (it is close to that), 1.5? Why not 2? Beside the obvious self-serving pork, there is important social aspect - military service is becoming the last possibility of upward social mobility for working class kids (economically depressed minorities are overrepresented in the lower ranks), and also a convenient way to remove many thousands of young, potentially rebellious youth from the streets of America and ship them to far flung bases to be trained and disciplined.
Trump, Democrats, and Republicans always had bipartisan consensus when it came to expanding the military industrial complex with record breaking funding year after year.
Wrong. The U.S. military/industrial complex needs to get ready to win the coming shooting war with the Communist Chinese Party.
Yes, actually, they actually were right-wing, if by that you mean committed to the preservation of capitalism against any and every other economic system. At no time in history has either legacy US political party truly been a "party of the the people". I know. I got curious and started reading up on the subject. I recommend that for people who still think they get the full story on the internet.
Democrats are "leftist" only as often and to the minimal degree necessary to maintain their hold on power. Under Clinton, they essentially abdicated even that level of commitment. The myth that they have, in the past, been "taken over by the left" is just that—a myth. That we are in a place where that takeover might actually be within our reach is inspiring.
I can't comment on those wars since I am not sure on details on the ground, but American Imperialism is a right wing idea, irrespective who is pushing it. Trump "played" like he was trying to do it, but nothing happened so nothing to brag about, All America leadership is guilty of it and right wingers have been the biggest cheerleaders of war with neo libs (who are light rig wingers). So eat your cake friends, you made it :)
So-called right wing imperialism started in World War II. It is bi-partisan. People on the far right and far left oppose it. All establishment politicians support it . Follow the money. It is neoliberalism in a nutshell. It is one of the things that most disturbs about the current censorship that seeks to silence all opposition, doesn't matter if it is left or right. Right now in history, the left is supporting this censorship in a big way. Trump was one of the anomalies in this era. That is one reason both sides conspired to destroy him. But, as far as war is concerned, Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama, all were the same.
I would be interested in knowing about a history book that states that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were "right wing"! Please identify such a book for me. By the way, "The Zimmerman Telegram" by Barbara Tuchman does not make Wilson in any way "right wing".
President Trump was the exact opposite of what you say. He withdrew from areas of the world where we had no business to be. He started no wars, unlike his predecessors. He negotiated peace among many countries, something that President Obama did not do anywhere (Obama did restart the slave trade in North Africa, probably his most significant "accomplishment").
Trump certainly liked to tell his fans that he was working hard at it, and apparently they believed him. I supported any moves away from interventionism, even when he was criticized for them, but didn't see many of them. There were a few underwhelming troop withdrawals... But civilian deaths skyrocketed in the middle east after Trump took office, he loved selling arms to the Saudis to bomb Yemen, and clearly he didn't care that much about peace (Or was just unsurprisingly ignorant) associating with the likes of John Bolton and Erik Prince.
What’s your take on the Abraham Accords?
So Bahrain, the UAE, Sudan, Kosovo, and Morocco did not sign peace agreements and recognize Israel? That was all fake news?
And Pre3sident Trump did not stand up to rhe Chinese Communist Government over their treatment of their people? He spoke about this constantly, spoke out for the people of Hong Kong, spoke against the rampant slavery used to harvest cotton, and in his last full day in office he issued the declaration of the treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang as genocide. Of course, he was the first U.S. President to take office fully educated about Communist China.
Actually, you can really blame Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers for all those wars, including Vietnam.
Truman didn't warmonger?!?!
According to you, we shouldn't have opposed Soviet Communism empiring the globe over?!?!
Of course. The Dulles brothers were totally responsible for World War 1. One of the Dulles brothers was married to President Edith Wilson and got her to start World War 1! Thanks for pointing out this obvious fact!
And the Dulles brothers and Eisenhower were clearly responsible for Pearl Harbor. I didn't know that Eisenhower was a General in the Air Force and an Admiral in the Navy. Interesting for this to finally come out after 80 years! You urgently need to correct Wikipedia which falsely claims "he served under various generals and was promoted to the rank of brigadier general in 1941".
You've been a victim of the main stream media. Yes, conservatives lean towards supporting businesses. That's different than large media conglomerates that have monopoly power (google, facebook, amazon, twitter, etc) who are now partners with Democrats in the all out assault on free speech. As far as wars are concerned, the last official war was WW2, but that aside, I think we could easily argue that Obama, Bush, Clinton and Bush #11 got us all into "wars". The number of drone strikes unleashed by Obama, 540 by the way, far surpassed anything Trump ever did or any other President did.
Not sure what "real left means", but the "real left" in this country are doing the following:
- attacking free speech
- banning books they don't agree with
- promoting an identity politics agenda where everything is based on race
Name one group of people in the last 200 years that did those things with good intentions and positive outcomes?
"Real Conservatives" - which is most conservative I know, believe in personal liberties, smaller government (name one thing the government does efficiently - and you're not allowed to say "grow the government" - cause I'd agree, that's the only thing politicians do effectively), small and medium sized business success - the engine that powers our economy - or, at least it used to until the Democrats shut them all down over the last year, a merit based social construct where everyone has an opportunity to succeed if they work hard - not an equal outcome based utopia, and a belief that government is not here to protect us, it's here to protect our liberties.
The current shit show is the left's doing. The fact that you can't see that just shows how blind you are.
I'm glad you admit you don't know what "real left" means since from there you go on to cite real phenomena but use the wrong label. Your comment deserves a competent and thorough rebuttal, which you'll find at the link below:
"Not sure what "real left means", but the "real left" in this country are doing the following:" (followed by a list the left did not and would not do and has never condoned)
http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
Exactly right. We are conservative and try to buy from locally-owned stores whenever possible and go to locally-owned restaurants, among other things.
lol your entire post is pathetic. No socialist government (which is what left is) had any power in USA for the past 60 years, All of them either had right wing polices or hard core right wing policies. The issues with right wingers is that they will never accept their screw up, well it is all good by me, because at this point they have no choice but do. Globalization, Low corporate taxes, war mongering, private insurance, Citizens VS United all right wing ideas so try and protect them. Enjoy your shit show cause it is hereto stay :)
A typical liberal maneuver. Move the bar. In your fantasy land, left means socialism. Let's just look at the Democratic party platform:
1) Protect Americans from the Covid-19 pandemic. I don't need government to protect me from a pandemic. I need them to protect our liberties. The exact thing the Democrat party is tearing down day by day. Maybe you want a nanny state. I do not.
2) Building a stronger, fairer economy. Sounds good, but if you read their bs, it's all about the fairness of outcome and not opportunity. If that's not socialism, what is?
3) Achieving universal, affordable health care. Government controlled single payer health care. More government oversight. When has government done anything efficiently? Never.
4) Reforming our criminal justice system. Pull your head out of the sand and check out what's happened when defund the police has become a reality. Minneapolis, Seattle, SF, LA, and the grand daddy of them all: Portland, where the mayor is now begging to put money back into the police force. LA, where the DA is proposing to let out anyone who's already done 15 years of time - they are literally toasting him inside the prisons.
5) Healing the Soul of America. Again, sounds nice, but read further. It's really about combating systemic racism - whatever the hell that means. What it really means, is make everything about identity, and teach whitey how racist they are. And if anyone complains, then they get silenced.
6) Combating Climate crisis. That's just code for supporting a trillion dollar big business industry. Who's in bed with corporate america? Anyone spouting about climate crisis over and over again.
7) Creating a 21st Century Immigration System. Don't even need to read the text, you can just take a look at the "non-crisis" at the border. Democrats just view this as providing a path to citizenship for 30-40MM Democrat voters which they see as a path to one party rule for the next century.
8) Providing World Class Education for Every Zip Code. WHAT A COMPLETE JOKE. Who's keeping classrooms closed because the teachers unions rule them? Democrats. Who does this hurt the most? The poor. Democrats couldn't give two shits about children - they'd rather pay homage to the Teachers unions. Plus, it wouldn't look good to open schools because the orange man said we should do it.
9) Renewing American Leadership. Wow, we've got a doddering old fart who can't even remember who his Defense Secretary is, nor what the Defense Department is or does. That's some great renewing. They've also got Pelosi who's even older than Joe. What a refreshing renewal.
If that isn't a socialist platform, I don't know what is. But keep blaming it on the other side and live in your bubble with your double mask, face shield and endless supply of disinfectant.
Respectfully, I don't think you know what you are talking about. Your comment would be accurate if you changed it to "No CAPITALIST government had any power in USA for the past 60 years, All of them either had left wing polices or hard core left wing policies."
Capitalism is simply a system where you provide some goods and service of value and I pay you for it. We don't have capitalism and haven't had it in decades. What we have is a combination of crony capitalism, corporatism and socialism.
Socialism is what destroyed the black community where we have over 75% of black kids are born outside wedlock (used to be 25% back in the 60s) and the numbers for other races are climbing up too.
Corporatism and crony capitalism is where billion dollar companies are getting government subsidies and bail outs. The 2008 bail out wasn't capitalism. In a capitalist system, one would have let all those companies and banks which made horrible decisions go bankrupt. In a capitalist system, car companies (be it ICE based or electric based), oil companies etc won't be getting government subsidies.
You calling Globalization a "right wing" idea clearly shows you have no idea what Globalization. Right wingers hate Globalization and get called conspiracy theorists for saying so.
Low corporate taxes is right wing? Tell that to the Scandinavian countries which the left worships so much - they also have the lowest corporate income taxes. All Scandinavian countries’ corporate income tax rates are lower than the United States’ rate.
Why has Amazon being pushing for $15 minimum wage? Because they know they can afford it and get rid of small business competition which can't afford it. Liberal policies, just like welfare destroying the black community will also destroy small businesses and then claim that wasn't enough socialism.
War mongering is a right wing thing? Nope. It's an establishment thing.
By your logic, either Trump supporters - who are anti-globalists, anti wars are either all hard left or you do not know what these terms mean.
I am someone who watched Jimmy Dore and is a big fan of his - because he's an honest liberal. But I also think he's extremely misguided and doesn't understand that the very government he's calling corrupt, incompetent and bloated - he wants to give them even more power and manage people's health care, decide who owns guns and who speaks what.
This is quite wrong:
"No socialist government (which is what left is)"
THat's a propagandized definition of "left" - intentionally fed to you to drive us Americans apart. Find an erudite explanation and correct defintions here: http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
"don't agree with but enjoy it" - now there's some entertaining moral gymnastics. The current "shit show" is most definitely the left's doing as illustrated in your parenthetical statement.
The people who are doing it, are not left, they are neo libs, which in any other country are center right, as in same BS economical and imperialist polices, but they pretend to be for minorities and LGBTQ and they use these items to censor their enemies, mostly real leftists, like Glenn for example. Where are the right wing honorable journalists? and why all of the right wingers here? Glenn is a socialist :). Just accept that there is no a single decent leader on right winger side. We don't have much either, but there is hope and we never had real power. Right wingers have been in power for the past 40 years (I include Clinton and Obama) to that too. neo Libs ate right wingers too, only much smarter in their cover up.
Right wingers have been in power for the past 40 years? Wow, that's a silly statement. But I guess if you define "left" and "right" counter to currently understood definitions it works.
President Obama was right wing? I never heard that. Amazing!
If you stood up for Alex Jones, who is a proxy for free speech, you have my respect and undying gratitude.
100% I never cared for him, but the moment they caned him I new that is censorship and it is bad. As a proper leftist I believe in my ideas with my whole heart and want to win over people rather then censor anyone that I disagree with. Anyone who is for censorship has no faith in their ideas.
Sadly, nearly all people on all sides want "ignorant" or "crazy" opposition "lies" shut up ("cancelled") and only their "righteous truth" to be told. That was so even when the country was founded, but the popular majority of anti-federalist farmers forced our Bill of Rights for protection from Federalist Party elite bankers, merchants, and attorneys. Those elite then too "knew what was best for everyone [particularly themselves]."
"Left" and "right" are arbitrary measurements which depend completely on how you draw the axis. Concepts like classical liberal, conservative or fiscal conservative are less arbitrary, but ONLY if you define them carefully. +With appropriate definitions+, I can then say that I am classically liberal, libertarian-leaning republican, fiscal conservative, conservative, and (old) whiggish (think Burke or John Adams) without any particular conflict. Does that make me "right" or "left"?
"I am not altogether on anybody’s side, because nobody is altogether on my side, if you understand me..." -- Treebeard
I'm sure SOME people think this way:
"Left" and "right" are arbitrary measurements which depend completely on how you draw the axis."
however, it's wrong. See the lower part of this excellent erudite write up of the terms Left and Right, where the come from and what they mean - the discussion begins after the graphing dialogue:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm
The "axis" can only be drawn one way, a horizontal line segment.
The leftmost endpoint is 100% State control/power, 0% individual freedom. Think Fascism (Third Reich) or Communist dictatorship (Xi in China today).
The rightmost point is 0% State, 100% individual freedom. Think Anarchy, an unstable, short-lived phenomena as individuals start banding together for protection and progress. True Capitalism (classical liberalism) is just to the left of the rightmost endpoint, let's say ~10% State (think military, police, courts of law) and ~90% individual freedom (the rights of life, liberty, and individual property ownership, collective property ownership by legal corporatioons that are owned by individual stockholders).
Where a society resides on this well-defined axis is determined by a political process, sometimes involving use of force, think "war is politics by other means," and gang/faction violence/terrorism, but usually by debate and some sort of vote, resulting in founding/defining public documents (constitutions) and rules (laws). Changes to a society's position on this well-defined axis are likewise determined over time by the same political processes, the nature of which can also change over time.
U.S today is still a mixed economy around the midpoint (public sector about 50% of whole as measured by GDP), but starting to move faster towards the left, as it has been moving for roughly 160 years, because the political system has been corrupted by the fact that the political party ostensibly for moving right (towards more individual freedom), the GOP, has fooled those voting for moving right, and instead it has just moved left a little bit slower than the party that is for moving left, the Democrats.
In 2016, unbeknownst to the voters themselves, the voters rejected this two party 160 yr. old system, that was failing to provide the voters with a choice of actually moving right, by electing a flawed, almost equally ignorant, non-politician who, surprise, surprise, actually tried to move the nation to the right by following through on what those GOP voters have wanted for 160 years, instead of just moving left a little slower than the other party that had become scary good at accelerating to the left.
I know, confusing, but not really THAT complicated.
Classical liberals (GG, me, Founders, Hayek, von Mises, Friedman, Capitalists) want to move right because we are too far left and heading to Authoritarian Socialism (say ~80% State control, very little individual freedom), to the glee of neo-liberals, who stole the word liberal from its classical understanding of true individual liberty.
Whoop, there it is!
Sometimes I wish I were an Ent.
Why don't you ask yourself whether it was "leftist" or "rightist" policies, politicians and judges who were responsible for the silicon valley giants and major media CORPORATIONS to acquire the power they have to censor and de-platform. Was it "leftists" who authored the Powell Memo or "leftists" who fought for the rights of monopolies over the rights of workers? The powers held by these corporations-as-people were conferred to them by more than a century of RIGHTist pro-corporate groups and individuals. Where were people like you complaining about these monopolistic, corporate, oligarch owned entities before Alex Jones got de-platformed? Nowhere, that's where.
Jay is just a troll -- please ignore him
That's right. Anyone with an opinion different from yours is a troll. Good one.
Liberals are neither left nor right. For an erudite discussion of this, read here: http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
That was my point -- there is a tremendous confusion of meaning of both terms -- liberal and neo-liberal -- there is no meaningful discussion if words can bend like hot dogs in various people minds... ;-))
I'll be curious what you think of the article I pointed you at - after all, I wrote it!
Will do -- started -- that is an elaborate and impressive essay... BR, Boris
'What will it take to whip you [non-left] into line, a broken heart, a broken head? It can be arranged. It can be arranged."
That’s because the entrenched status quo opinion makers are being silenced now.
They had no problem when the Federal govt skated through the 1980’s without addressing AIDS but for moral condemnation of its carriers.
I'm March 1987 the first drug to treat AIDS, AZT, was marketed. Who was skating?
The Reagan administration did a lot in response to AIDS.
Indeed Dr Fauci was in charge of NIAID at NIH during the 1980s.
From November 1986 in the Washington Post:
"Under Fauci's leadership, however, the role of the rejuvenated infectious diseases institute [NIAID] has grown, particularly in large-scale testing of new AIDS drugs.
"The NIAID budget for AIDS jumped from $ 297,000 in fiscal 1982 to $ 63 million in 1986, and $ 146 million is estimated for 1987, accounting for more than one-quarter of the institute's projected $ 545 million budget and nearly 60 percent of NIH's funding for AIDS. The NIAID will spend more than twice as much this year on AIDS work as the NCI."
Period.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/11/03/anthony-s-fauci/8d270beb-e95d-46e5-808b-d670630223f4/
Yeah. Reagan and Fauci were less impressive if you or those you cared about actually had the virus in the 80’s
Damn, MORE wrong labeling. Here, read this so you can get your lables un-propagandized: http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
Which is such a self-contradiction, you gotta wonder what it might mean. The only kind of "left" that can actually be corporate is a phony one.
The kind of left that gets rich or takes over corporations and embraces (as many of them do) capitalism for themselves, but not for you, because you can't be trusted with it.
No...neo-liberalism.
Thank you Glenn for documenting this. It makes sick to see US corporate media described as -- "left".
PS: Anything "left" has left DNC oligarch leadership long ago...
The New Left and the Old Left are not the same. The New Left is comprised of race baiting, corporate-loving, narcissistic authoritarian conformists. The Old Left were primarily individualist, freedom loving, colorblind rebels. The New Left has banished the Old Left to the hinterlands for the moment.
There is NOTHING left in your "New Left" whatever that means. Just empty names. A simple test on who is progressive - “Left” versus “fake Left”:
- Defended publisher Assange
- Protested “Russia-gate” hoax and two impeachment “entertainments” time waste - while citizens were collapsing into poverty
- Demand massive DNC corruption investigation (e.g., Hunter’s laptops)
- Demand stop of sanctions against “godless” socialist countries
- (plus -- M4A, Trump virus $2K/mo, $30/hr min, urgent action on climate change, police brutality, (in)justice reform, “defense” budget, etc.)
Who passes the criteria – TYT, Intercept, corp. media, Congress/Senate -- certainly NOT. Anything still missing on my list?
Interestingly, a rising star in DNC in 2015, who was “excommunicated” after declaring for socialist Bernie and not for corrupt queen Hillary (who brazenly named her “Russian asset” after Tulsi demolished Hillary’s protégé Kamala Harris), Tulsi Gabbard, passes most of my progressive criteria. While most opponents of DNC cabal would meekly “bring chocolates” to Pelosi and Schumer, here is the truly epic and exceptional Tulsi’s response:
“Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton . You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly”.
Dem Party is beyond salvation – a viable third (and fourth..) party is THE solution.
Tulsi Gabbard is the best of the Democratic Party. No one else even comes close. That is probably why the establishment doesn't like her.
Good news- we agree. Both parties are corrupt beyond salvation and need be replaced as I indicated in my other comment. My actual preference would be to eliminate all political parties. The founding fathers of America correctly believed that political parties would lead to partisan conflict that would threaten the country. Today's climate has proven them prescient. But getting rid of both parties without replacement may be a step too far for the sheeple.
Change must come from within the system. The only alternative is bloody revolution.
I've been a liberal my entire life, but I've never been a Democrat. The best way to fight black and white thinking is to not subscribe to it in the first place.
"Dem Party is beyond salvation – a viable third (and fourth..) party is THE solution."
In 2016, I was *praying* that, first, Trump (given his temperament) would split off to form a third party, but then Bernie -- if he was serious about "revolution" -- would then split for a *fourth* party.
Well, it was the TPTB who obviously heard my prayers ... and took corrective action on both of them.
If you understood the EXTREME difficulty of building any physical organization to take on the two existing parties here in America, not to mention the required re-education of masses of voters then you would understand the near impossibility of the task.
One has to "take over" an existing structure.
That is what is happening with Trump and the GOP as well as the "progressives" and the Democrats.
As someone who organized campaigns for over three decades at a state level I can tell you that when those machines are "turned in" they are fearsome.
Thank you - I value your expertise. However, why do you think that those fearsome machines would be easier to realign from inside?
Why not support the GOP's launching a challenge to the Electoral College vote -- the way Dems launched one each time they lost over the last 30 years (2000, 2004, 2016), for example.
The Democratic Party is a dictatorship of billionaire donors and arms and intelligence industry interests -- nothing that benefits the 99% of population is relevant to it.
By far the highest interest of Biden government and its DNC cabal is that Russia-gate immense hoax – the scam of the century -- will NOT / will NEVER be exposed. Hence immense obligations to primary propagandists for their roles, including despicable Kamala Harris (Hillary’s protégé), Neera Tanden, Melissa Hodgman (wife of the Comey’s infamous Peter Strzok), Pete Buttigieg, etc,
And even if we did, the Democrats would just rig another election.
Right but then Gabbard endorsed Biden 5 minutes after her own party used McCarthyism on her, like a good little bootlicker that she is.
Perhaps she concluded that Trump is worse choice....
Yes, that was very disappointing. Ditto for dropping charges against Google (that was a very interesting first deplatforming attempt by big tech, I wonder if she had pursued it more and made a bigger stink about it if Dorsey would be brave enough to censor Trump for example) and letting slide Hillary with the smear. Even so, all around her balance is positive and who knows - she may reenter politics at some point. It would certainly be a welcome change.
They are not new and not left, so I don't accept the label. It's very misleading.
This is mistaken:
"The New Left and the Old Left are not the same."
You're following a carefully crafted propagandized definition - it's explained in detail here:
http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
New Left = neo-liberal = Statism
Old Left = classical liberal = Capitalism
Covers 99% of ALL politics.
Let's not confuse an authoritarian status quo with "the left".
Well said, M. Boris Petrov. We are allies once again!
The “left” just allegedly got more presidential votes than in the history of our country. If the left left the DNC then who the hell voted for Gropin Joe?
Joe lost so maybe less than you think
Hence the word “allegedly”. Anyone with any brains knows it was stolen.
I think it’s now hard to figure out what even is the left or liberal. The same way they have destroyed terms like white supremacy and racism and threat to democracy, same way, terms like liberal don’t mean anything in today’s world. People are claiming to be liberal while calling for censorship. That’s contradicting but unfortunately these people are too dumb to recognize that they aren’t liberal one bit. They are fascists.
Also I do wish there were at least a few from the “left” who had defended Milo, Alex Jones etc. Even tulsi only started talking about censorship when it happened to her (by Google ads and media calling her russian agent). Before then, she stayed silent.
The “right” on the other hand including trump supporters were defending not just tulsi and Alex Jones and Milo, they were even defending Bernie freaking Sanders when he got cheated out twice by the DNC.
We agree - we have two fascist parties who have monopoly on elections...
Lol. When has the freedom caucus ever called for censorship? The left spent four years shrieking the Trump was a "fascist" even though he never did or said anything to support those charges. Trump stands for individualism and federalism. The left and democrats insist on collectivism and authoritarianism.
A fascist dictator would need media cover, educational institution cover, Hollywood cover, pop culture cover, Big tech cover, federal judge cover, union cover, the whole machine cover to get away with it. We all know who has all of that.
You know..I know..but does Slow Joe know..the shade of Brezhnev
Your assertions about "the left" are mistaken, based on a propagandized definition of "left". I recommend you read at least parts of this: http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
VERY well said.
"I do wish there were at least a few from the “left” who had defended Milo, Alex Jones etc."
IDK who Milo is, but did defend Jones.
Tulsi was in a political race; your criticism of her isn't the least bit valid - it's not like you can say she never addressed these questions.
Remember when she went and showed support for Biden in the elections? All that anti war stuff went out the window. At least Jimmy Dore called her out for that.
Tulsi was the one politician who could have spearheaded the left/right synthesis ...instead..she cravenly supported Old Joe who represented everything she supposedly stood against.
Oh what could have been!
A Tongan American Hindu warrior truth telling warrior queen afraid of being tainted by the right.
I admit I wasn't happy about that, but MAYBE she felt she had reason to believe Trump was a lot worse than Biden.
They were / are BOTH shitty, so I'm not going to blame anyone for picking either; for myself, I voted Green Party instead of either of those crappy people. ...I'd like to see a LOT MORE people have the gumption to vote for OTHER THAN D or R - if we did so in massive numbers it would change U.S. politics overnight.
Exactly. "Left" and "Liberal" or not in any way the same. There are two parameters for politics that provide this distinction.
One is extent of freedom from government control: libertarian on the right, liberal in the center, socialist/communist on the left.
The second is degree of changing society: conservative is in the center, progressive/radical on the left and reactionary on the right.
The current Democratic party is socialist and radical. The Republican party is conservative and liberal.
I don't think the "Republican party" is. Majority of the constituents are yes. But majority of the politicians aren't. Majority of republican politicians are incompetent cucks.
This is propaganda from the ultra-rich: "socialist/communist on the left."
Further, the current Democratic Party is right-wing, right where the Republicans were in 1980. The current Republican Party is in batshitcrazy territory.
It's much more useful for the politicians to divide us along "left" and "right", when the actual divide is between collectivist and individualist. Unfortunately, there are useful idiots on both sides of the political aisle that are more than eager to cover for their idols, thus distracting us from the real problems.
The divide is not between "collectivist and individualist" -- no, that's what they want us to think. But both of these things are not only compatible but absolutely necessary values to have in a democratic republic, as both are complementary components of human nature. The real issue is, and always has been, prioritization between those two.
The former was for much of the 20th century (now long gone) more or less convincingly represented by Democrats, the latter by Republicans. The spin doctors in each party have always used each value to accused the other party of failing to live up to "We the People". Meanwhile, because collectivism and individualism are necessary and complentary values, the Democratic Party and Republican Party can never be killed by mere third parties. It's a perfect scam.
The divide that matters *now* is democracy (however implemented), vs anti-democracy. Don't confuse that with L vs R, the two halves that can never be a whole alone.
I'll probably invite a crapstorm with this, but democracy is highly overrated and frankly, I couldn't really care less about voter turnout and other useless metrics of democratic participation. Mob rule is no better than any other authoritarian system. A constitutional republic on the other hand, is worth preserving. Unfortunately, I think in the case of the USA, we're merely preserving its corpse.
As far as balance between individualism and collectivism and the ideas of the social contract go, I'll just leave you with some words of wisdom from its creator, Rousseau.
“whoever refuses to obey the general will will be forced to do so by the entire body; this means merely that he will be forced to be free.”
“The state … ought to have a universal compulsory force to move and arrange each part in the manner best suited to the whole.” And if the leaders of the state say to the citizen, “‘it is expedient for the state that you should die,’ he should die.”
I have nothing against our democratic republic. I support it. Your understanding appears to have been corrupted by the current fashion on the right to conflate "democracy" with "pure democracy". Democracy (per Merriam-Webster) is "government by the people". Are you one of the people? As in "We the People"?
In any case, regarding your assertion that "democracy is highly overrated": Someday, I suspect you'll wonder how the waterline for nearly all participation rose above your head. By "participation", I mean your anywhere -- forget voting, and think of any and all activities you have in business and in life. It's a-comin'. This article of Glenn's is about just one dimension.
Democracy is merely a mechanism. A constitutionally limited government that respects individual rights is the goal. One may argue that the latter is not possible without the former, but it is unwise to ignore the dangers that democracy can pose on its own.
The elevation of democracy to that of a sacred term above all others in our society endangers all of our rights. 51% does not a morality make.
No, it's not "current fashion on the right to conflate "democracy" with "pure democracy"."
How can you even say that? As if people who correct it are just following some meaningless fad?
If you asked the younger generation, most won't be able to even tell you a difference. That's one of the main reasons AOC and her followers have been calling for things like abolishing the electoral college. Abolishing the electoral college will bring full on democracy - mob rule where 51% rule over the 49%. California and New York gets to rule over everyone else.
It is very important to correct people when they want democracy and explain to them the dangers of one.
I wish US had electoral college even in the states and cities.
Very well put, Wayne. Exactly right, thanks.
I see the divide most simply as: The ultra-rich, their puppets, henchmen, and sycophants (the true "right") vs absolutely everybody else ("We, The People" but also the true "left").
If we leave out the stuff I put in parenthesis, whoever calls themselves right or left can likely see the truth of the statement - at least, those who are the "We. The People" category.
BTW, you can also call this "oligarchy vs some-form-of-democracy", if you like - it amounts to the same thing.
The Elites vs the Deplorables, (for lack of a better understood term.)
Or the Deplorables (the elitist globalist, corporate-fascists) vs. those who want nothing but TRUE Freedom and Liberty (everyone else who isn't an elitists globalist, corporate-fascist).
Kind of hard to "design" a society without granting a commanding position to someone.
Maybe we could call these designers "philosopher-kings" and their ideal society a kallipolis.
Someone, of course, already *did call them "philosopher kings", as well you know, and I *still cherish the qualifications upon which Plato insisted in order to "vet" those who would be politicians.
In the Athenian democracy, similar to the much later U.S. Democracy, "people" were defined for voting purposes as "free, white, male, landowners, over age 21."
Plato reasonably argued that *landowners would suffer financial losses by ignoring the maintenance of their farms while they took years away from home to come to Athens to perform a public service by sitting in the Senate, etc. And yet, of course, even now, we have people spending in excess of a quarter of a *billion dollars plus in their frantic attempt to secure a job (POTUS) that pays about a quarter million dollars a year in salary.
To counter this clearly suspicious phenomenon, Plato proposes in his work "The Republic", that we insist that the ONLY people we allow into office are those people who can PROVE that they really do NOT want the job at all !
That was roughly 2,400 years ago, but it is *still a solid idea ! :-D
That would divide our very self, as we are both
The collectivism I participate in is purely voluntary. The collectivism of government is anything but.
YOU, in your individualism, haven't any chance whatsoever of overcoming the chains and yoke the ultra-rich have already set on your shoulders.
Wake up, dude, this is a "class war" and the ultra-rich are winning. You could stop supporting them, you know, by changing your tune and 1) stop attacking other non-rich people and 2) realize that collective action is REQUIRED for us to regain control over the ultra-rich.
Otherwise,they're going to bring the vast majority of the entire current biosphere, including humanity, to extinction since they know no moderation - demonstrably.
You are helping our oppressors. WAY TO GO! -face-palm-
Yes, of course, collectivism is the only way to fight collectivism.
I may choose to join with others in a struggle against those who wish to deprive me of my natural rights, but I do not cede my rights to those I am joining with any more than I do to those who currently violate those rights.
Your mistake is thinking that you can replace one collectivist system with another and retain your freedoms when collectivist systems always deny the rights of the individual and make your own person the property of the state.
And you misidentify the problem. The rich aren't my oppressors. They don't possess the power to imprison me, to invade my home without a warrant, to seize my assets, to take my children from me, to send me off to war in the name of the state, to prevent me from trading freely.... The government holds the monopoly on force. And it is from that power that all else flows.
Certainly, the rich and powerful collude with government to fulfill their desires, but it is the government that holds the actual power. Don't believe me? Consider for a moment that the rich have only one tool to work with, money. Now consider that the government controls the value of that money thru printing and they can seize it at will like FDR did with physical gold during the Depression or any number of fortunes seized during the War on Drugs. Ask Jack Ma how his money protected him... oh wait, you can't.
If society doesn’t protect the rich, than everyone becomes poor? If society doesn’t protect the poor, then society is meaningless and will be overthrown
I feel that power resides in the collective as the first cause of power. However, that the community is better served to take that power and distribute it to individuals as much as possible
Wonder who, in the community, decides on the distribution.
Former Black Communist Leonard Patterson Exposes Racial Psyops of The Divide And Conquer Method:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0ksHW1mnlA
https://streamable.com/4lgzh2
You are exactly right about this. You were spot-on when you drew the line between liberty/free thinking and authoritarianism.
What I am seeing is so-called conservatives like David French, Bill Kristol and the like joining up with those on the Left calling for suppression.
What this is comes down to, at least in part, to those who see themselves as part of the Elect (thanks, John McWhorter) flexing their muscles to put sinners in their place. I know you are not a Trump fan, but he was emblematic of this--he threatened their grip on all the levers of power and control, and so he had to be destroyed.
It always comes down to power and control.
Both groups of oligarchs that rule us - DNC and GOP - are equally repulsive and hopeless. We need to unite for a third party -- it will not win for decades but we need to break out of current monopoly.
Nope, it comes down to those who believe their choices should be exported to the "unwashed infidels" and those who prefer to let people make their own choices, even when they might be "suboptimal."
And how is this not an issue of power and control? The non-Elect, the infidels, the peasants, the serfs...we must be told what to think, because allowing us to think for ourselves threatens the ecclesial hierarchy (and it IS a religion). We must be controlled, lest the Elect lose their exalted positions.
Could you define "suboptimal", identify who makes this determination, and by what right?
👍
I think most people on the right would agree, that free speech is deeply rooted on the left or in liberalism. But very few on the left are standing up for it today. There should be a massive torrent coming forward, instead, it is a trickle.
Free speech is rooted in CLASSICAL liberalism (Capitalism), as stated in the Declaration, and implemented in the Constitution. The Left today is NEO-liberalism (Statism, the OPPOSITE of Capitalism. Capitalism demands a SMALL State). The Left today is FOR censorship, FOR Authoritarian Socialism, FOR the destruction of free market Capitalism, FOR the destruction of individual freedom.
You don't know the first thing about The Left.
And you are mis-defining The Left, as Leftists throughout history have found it necessary to do, in order to grow the State, at the expense of the freedom of the individual.
This is both false, and a perfect summary of what the propaganda of the ultra-rich has been trying to get the "right leaning" population to believe. In short, you have taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker, of what they want you to believe.
Find a good write up here: http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
That article gives the origin and full evolution of the political terms Left, Right, and Liberal, and touches on the more modern usage of Neo-Liberal and Neo-Conservative as well.
The title is: The Left / Right Dichotomy, the Meanings of Left, Right & Liberal, and U.S. Politics Today
It's rather long but here's the "table of contents":
U.S. Politics Today
Shortcomings of the left-vs-right dichotomy
Propagandistic Manipulation
Relativism
Centrism
Freedom & Liberty
Origin and Evolution of the terms left, right, and liberal in politics
The original Right's opposition to original Liberalism
Early Left opposition to Liberalism
Mid 1800s
Marxist opposition to Liberalism
Rise of the modern Right
The emergence of modern politics
Left and Right in relation to Liberalism and each other
The Recent Re-Definition of Left
Liberalism and Neo-Liberalism vs Left
Alternative Systems to the left vs right linear continuum
The Political Compass
The Rational Spectrum
I recommend you read the whole thing. I'm 100% sure you'll learn more than you expect to.
Happy Reading.
It's my perception that a huge fraction of the actual left doesn't engage in social media like the neo-liberals do, so we don't see as much of it and have fewer opportunities to visibly respond. However, the left people I know all talk about this among ourselves and where we can outreach - like in comment sections - and universally decry what's going on now with cancel culture and this neo-liberal bullshit.
I don't even begin to understand what you mean by "the actual left."
Do you mean Statists, or Capitalists?
"I don't even begin to understand what you mean by "the actual left.""
Yes, it's very clear from your postings you don't understand what the left actually is.
The left is what brought you the 5 day work week with a 2 day weekend, the 8 hour work day (so far as we can keep that in this day and age), public education (as opposed to no educattion for the masses), and I could go on. Today, to distinguish ourselves from that heinous NOT left bullshit brought about by, for example, the fans of Hillary Clinton, the Neo-Liberals, we often call ourselves Progressives. We are FOR THE PEOPLE and advocate policies that help the people (as opposed to the oligarchs and the insanely rich).
I would have much more respect for progressives if they just fought for the people in an honorable way. Instead, you allow what you call neoliberals to represent you and use the tools of hatred and envy you likely claim to not use or believe, all for their own agenda. It happens on the right as well. It just isn’t nearly as destructive to society.
It would greatly benefit the progressive left to demarcate what you would be willing to accept. Otherwise, us producers on the right are never going to believe your motives pure and that you are doing nothing more than trying to take what someone else worked for. It is never ending. We have gone from child labor to a welfare state and now UBI in a hundred years. The entitlement, a concept foreign to me, is through the roof. Half the county wants something for nothing and is willing to ignore their activist representatives burning down entire city blocks and ruining lives.
Many on the right now believe you want us all dead. With all the insane societal destructive things neoliberals are pushing it is getting harder to think otherwise. That was likely the neoliberal’s plan from the beginning and RINO’s were a part of it.
Progressives need to wise up and realize there will be nothing left if the UniParty succeeds. For example, why in the world would a progressive be in favor of disarming law abiding citizens leaving only criminals and the state with arms? This position alone makes me question the sanity of the entire movement. Are they really so naive and gullible as to think they will let you live after that?
I give you exhibit 1,457 to go along with the overt racist Critical Race Theory being taught all over the country.
https://www.city-journal.org/calif-ethnic-studies-curriculum-accuses-christianity-of-theocide
He means these people most likely. Elitists that would never vote non Democrat yet have the sanity to see the authoritarianism they voted for destroying their children’s minds. They whisper in the dark amongst themselves about how this could have come to pass oblivious to the fact their votes ushered it in.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/im-cult-miseducation-americas-elites
False.
While I agree with most of this comment, Glenn, even by the early 1980s it was the Left that was largely driving censorship on college campuses.
Yes, this IS true! I was at Michigan state even in mid-70's and the political science teacher was teaching Marxism and when I raised my hand to debate with him, he literally IGNORED me. Even then. This has been creeping up. They are free speech AS LONG AS IT IS THEIR SPEECH. Otherwise, it could always be shut down. Still, they did have a point in Berkley back then...
Marxism is a Janus monster. On the one hand, it oh so passionately complains about the oppressed. On the other hand, it won't let them do anything about it. Not on their own, that is. "Stand back! The experts have arrived! We'll take over from here, thank you very much!" I'm surprised they haven't been laughed out of existence. But I suppose it works because it's actually a psy-op.
I should clarify that I feel that way specifically about prescriptive Marxism, not about democratic socialism.
The key is democracy. Marxism, as I have always seen it, claims monopolies on truth and morality. Democracy -- by definition -- doesn't.
Yes! That's why Lula in Brazil Is NOT a Castro or Lenin, who confiscated (State theft) private property. Lula MAY have engaged in corruption, and give lip service to Marxism/communism, but he is no oppropriator of private property, THE worst aspect of Bolshevik/Bolivar revolution. Lula is a (small d) democrat, in that he will respect democracy, and leave office if he loses.
What is the difference between voting in socialism or having it forced upon you? You still end up with socialism.
At San Diego State, where I attended and graduated from, conservative speakers were regularly chased from campus - with the tacit approval of the administration. I was suspended from the school newspaper for violating an "unwritten rule" against running offensive letters to the editor. Yes, we had a a YAF chapter at SDSU, but we also had a SPEC chapter that actively tried to ban military and corporate recruiters from campus. In fact, left-wing activists managed to get the Avalon Hill wargaming club banned! (They changed their name from the "Wargaming Club" to the "Conflict Resolution Club" and had no more problems when playing their favorite board games, as I recall.) So far as I know, YAF was the one invoking the 1st Amendment. It certainly wasn't SPEC.
There were also attempts at the same time at UC San Diego to have the California Review newspaper banned from campus for daring to run conservative content.
So you can analyze all that if you like ...
Oh, and my sophomore year, I was taking a creative writing class for my English minor, and the instructor (not a professor) pulled me aside and said my Air Force ROTC uniform was "offensive" and I needed to change before class each Tuesday. I told her that would not happen - at which point she told me that if I insisted on wearing the uniform, the best grade I could hope for was a C. She was honest, at least - I got a C that class.
What year was this?? Thanks for writing this.
1983-86.
lol - typical troll, trying to impose some kind of rules on the discussion to favor his point of view.
Oh bull. Your occupation DOES enter into it. And we are talking about major universities -- this was happening in the 70's at any major university. I'm sure some smaller colleges were conservative, but it was already on the march. YOU "prove" you are right! What arrogance.
Wally, I'd like to know what kind of work allowed you to gather such an incorrect impression. By 1990, the left had all but taken over the major west coast university where I worked. They started writing articles about "White Male Dinosaurs" in the university paper, and soon thereafter there were calls for censorship of any critical view "that created a chilly climate for feminist research."
I published an article stating that all research should be subject to criticism, and soon faced calls for my resignation, hate mail in my inbox, two attempts to set fire to my office, a mysterious cancellation of a research grant, and direct reprisals *against my children*. That was w