Why is the American left so desperate to maintain its taboos? I wish I had an answer.
Take a moment, ladies and gentlemen, to ponder a short selection from the Republicans' first Presidential candidates debate. It’s about three-quarters of the way through, on page 18 of the transcript I just linked up. Here’s the bit I’m talking about:…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Dr Dreadful
Thanks for clarifying, Dave. I realized immediately after posting the comment that it was a bit sadistic considering your current keyboardic catastrophe!
27 - Dave Nalle
gonzo, i've posted the list of socialist democrats before, including prominent leaders like pelosi and conyers. it's pretty well documented. look through my old articles.
and when have you ever seen me support the three anti-evolution morons who are running for president? and please note how well they're doing. even republicans don't support these guys. combined they have like 2% support if that. pretty strong proof that religious fanaticism is not nearly as mainstream in the gop as socialist fanaticism is in the democratic party.
dave
28 - zingzing
"It's not that leftists don't believe in god, to a leftist THE GOVERNMENT IS GOD!"
ha! oh my. hyperbole and its greatest.
as for dave's "1/3rd of dems are socialists" statement... does belief in some sort of social net (like welfare) make you a socialist? do you see anyone trying to nationalize private companies? are there massive democratic landgrabs going on? i don't get it. what makes these people socialists?
29 - gonzo marx
i mention the 3 because by the sampling of GoP presidential candidates, they represent about a third of the Party, yes?
as for your previous bits concerning "socialists"
you can post any list you like, but i have yet to see evidence showing some of those folks are "socialists"...McCarthyism just doesn't cut it
( i tried to link to the Dem platform from '04, but it gives me a "banned word" error)
Excelsior?
30 - Dave Nalle
i mention the 3 because by the sampling of GoP presidential candidates, they represent about a third of the Party, yes?
the process for selecting presidential primary candidates isn't exactly accurately representative. based on the percentage of their support in polls they represent almost no one in the party, and that's more accurate than just counting how many there are.
as for your previous bits concerning "socialists"
you can post any list you like, but i have yet to see evidence showing some of those folks are "socialists"...McCarthyism just doesn't cut it
i don't want to go through all of this again in detail, but there is a group in congress called the progressive caucus. its members include most of the current leadership. up until about 5 years ago it was directly associated with the socialist international, but they redesigned their website and have played down that association since about 2002. to address zedd's issue, these are not just democrats who support social welfare programs. they're full-on socialists in the democratic party.
dave
31 - gonzo marx
you STILL dodge the question, and try to distract...
you STILL continue to make accusations without showing any shred of evidence, besides your say so
even your assertions are what, 5 years out of date and of dubious threat at best...
none of it compares to the examples of what the GoP has ACTUALLY done in the examples i;ve given, over the last 6 years of one Party rule with them in control
and you STILL have not given a single quote on the Dem platform as to what you find so threatening, "evil" or even objectionable
Excelsior?
32 - Dave Nalle
as for the democratic party platform as passed at the convention, it's generally much more moderate than what the party really believes and certainly more moderate than what they're really shooting for. it's designed for public consumption and doesn't really represent what they believe or are trying to accomplish. i mean, read the damned thing. it's utterly balless. we all know that it doesn't represent their beliefs. if i were a democrat and took the platform seriously i'd leave the party.
interestingly i went by the congressional progressive caucus web page and discovered that certain formerly prominent members who have moved into leadership positions like nancy pelosi have left the caucus. oh, and the membership has increased by about 10 people since the last time i checked it about 2 years ago.
dave
33 - zingzing
"to address zedd's issue, these are not just democrats who support social welfare programs. they're full-on socialists in the democratic party."
for fuck's sake. I AM NOT ZEDD! and that's not all i asked either. what's a full-on socialist? are they nationalizing industry? grabbing all the land? what? where?
34 - gonzo marx
@ #32 - so what you are saying is that the platforms do not matter, but what the elected representatives actually do once elected is the Thing..do i understand that correctly?
:::points to #31::: you STILL have not answered the direct Questions..if you have no intention of ever doing so, and instead want to keep on with unsubstantiated claims..please just say so
Excelsior?
35 - zingzing
i'll copy my comment from the "what was pres bush thinking..." thread over here. originally posted at 13:52:
"what the party members actually do is what the platform really is. other than that, it's just words that get you to vote.
that's like saying 'judge me for what i say, not what i do!'"
so that's a full minute before dave posted the same thing about the democratic party... after he stated that he followed the gop because of their platform, not because of what the membership actually does...
what the fuck is going on, dave?
and bring up an example. just one! anything will do at this point. then, when you think of another, assuming you can get that far, you go ahead and post that one! okay?
36 - moonraven
I am appalled by how you guys just make stuff up. Lying is clearly the rhetorical stance of choice on this site.
And your free hand with bogus statistics is just WILD--including the utterly laughable "one third of democrats are socialists"!!!!!!
Since when has any major party candidate attached the S-word to herself or himself in the US?
Every one of the democrats and republicans running for president is a savage capitalist by definition. (They would not have received money for their campaigns if they weren't!)
The contention by somebody talking out his ten gallon crapper that socialists CONTROL the democratic party would sure as hell be news to anyone who IS asocialist!
Have you no shame?
37 - Dave Nalle
zing (not zedd) see my comment on the other thread. i never said word one about the gop platform. stop confusing the platform with what people actually believe.
dave
38 - zingzing
i'm not confusing the platform with what people actually believe...
in fact, that's the distinction I (notice the capitalization) made.
you're the one who said "the gop does not include warrantless wiretaps, torture or changes to habeas corpus in their party platform," as if you were separating the platform from "what people actually believe" (or "actions," as i call it).
so which is it?
39 - bliffle
Just mention the word "McCarthyism" and someone jumps up to illustrate it:
Gonzo:
"...McCarthyism just doesn't cut it"
Tailgunner Joes ghost pops up in a Texas beanpatch:
"i don't want to go through all of this again in detail, but there is a group in congress called the progressive caucus. its members include most of the current leadership. up until about 5 years ago it was directly associated with the socialist international, but they redesigned their website and have played down that association since about 2002. to address zedd's issue, these are not just democrats who support social welfare programs. they're full-on socialists in the democratic party.
dave"
Sorry. I was gone for a minute. Fainted from the mere idea of the threats implicit in these associations.
Socialists! Mein gott! The commies have been transformed into dem party socialists, just like those Iraqi WMDs are all in Syria now - a transformation! How insidious! How sneeky! It's just like those IslamoCommies to do something like that.
Go get 'em Tailgunner!
When are you enlisting?
40 - gonzo marx
comment #99 in this thread sez, and i Quote...
"the gop does not include warrantless wiretaps, torture or changes to habeas corpus in their party platform. they do not run candidates who openly advocate violating peoples rights and destroying the constitution. the policies which they advocate as good for the country are mostly actually positive.
the democrats on the other hand, have a history of advocating a philosophy of government which is inherently incompatible with the constitution and which would violate rights included there and in some cases even more fundamental than much of what is included in the bill of rights. starting from a point of philosophically opposing liberty how can they possibly produce an end result which is better than the gop?"
which is the point this debate began
you insult me about "memory loss" , but can't seem to even remember what you have typed recently
nuff said?
Excelsior?
41 - gonzo marx
#37 sez - "i never said word one about the gop platform. stop confusing the platform with what people actually believe."
and yet zing and i both point out this is factually incorrect and in comments #38 & 40, cite and quote our proof
who is trying to confuse things here?
i'd sincerely like to here the explanation for this from the source, when convenient...
Excelsior?
42 - Dr Dreadful
moonraven #36:
As I've remarked before on BC (and hailing from Europe as I do, it's probably plainer for me than for a homegrown Yank to see this), the mainstream political spectrum in the US is slewed way to the right to begin with. The upshot of this is that opinions and policies which aren't socialist by European or Latin American standards are often perceived as such by US observers, especially conservatives.
43 - moonraven
Are you trying to excuse the mistaken labelling?
Knowing Nalle--as we all should--he equates socialism with being a communist.
I see no reason for him to be allowed to make the kinds of propagandistic defamations that he routinely makes in these threads.
He is FOX News without its hair.
44 - Dr Dreadful
Not excusing, mr, just observing.
If that is indeed Dave's view, then he's no different than a lot of his country[wo]men.
And although he does wield a pretty broad brush sometimes (one often clogged with paint and with many of its bristles missing), he is expressing an opinion, not defaming.
I always thought Alan Colmes was Fox News without its hair... LOL.
45 - moonraven
I would hate to think there are others of Nalles out there--exploding with ignorance and arrogance.
On the other hand, there are good reasons that I left the US almost 15 years ago and would not consider returning. One of those reasons, clearly, is the existence of folks like Nalle.
46 - troll
so...I guess when you guys look around the West (US included) you don't see one big happy socialist utopia - ?
you want to see pre-socialist production relations take a look at the international working class - you know...the people who are actually producing products - and its corporate masters who split the US for warmer more friendly climes
(just like moonraven)
a country doesn't have to be crude and go nationalizing everything right away to be socialist...the Fed's control economy and welfare (individual and business) are enough to earn the moniker
47 - lumpy
troll has it right about there already being plenty of socialism here. so why should we put up with even more? isn't it bad enough?
48 - Baronius
Back to the original question... I think you're overlooking the practical role that churches play in campaigns, especially in southern/black areas. The church provides a free pulpit. It recalls the early years of the civil rights movement. They're in every town. They're great places to find volunteers.
Once you open a national chain of Big Atheist Halls, there may be candidates who'll speak at them.
49 - Dr Dreadful
a country doesn't have to be crude and go nationalizing everything right away to be socialist...the Fed's control economy and welfare (individual and business) are enough to earn the moniker
Proved my point, troll. In the rest of the world that's social democracy, not socialism. Different animals.
50 - moonraven
Absolutely!
And for anyone who is so misguided as to believe that anything even remotely resembing sociaism exists in the US--HOW ABOUT THAT GREAT HEALTH PLAN YOU IDIOTS HAVE?
51 - Ray Ellis
Just saw this thread, and I have to ask--do any of you guys even fucking know what socialism is?--or do you merely like throwing the word out there like a molatov cocktail?
52 - troll
*...social democracy, not socialism. Different animals.*
as you see it - other than government's nationalizing means of production what are the differences between these animals - ?
do you see the shift from one to the other as an all or nothing qualitative leap or can governments be more and less socialist - ?
53 - gonzo marx
i think that nationalizing the means of production is a pretty big differentiating factor troll
as is socialized medicine and education
to my understanding you need at least those three to be a full out socialist nation
Excelsior?
54 - troll
in the US:
there is medicare/medicaid
there is public education
there is social security
there is a tax structure that serves the same function as nationalization
there is a fed reserve 'steering' the economy
socialist - ?
55 - moonraven
Sheer nonsense.
Medicare and Medicaid are a far cry from socialized medicine. They only cover specific populations and are administered by private non-profits.
Public education is available in all countries that I am aware of--and they are not socialist. Ditto social security.
All countries I am aware of have a central bank. Which is what the fed is.
A tax structure is nationalization--that's REALLLLLLLY STRETTTTTTTCHINg it.
Check out information on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela's plans and you will see a country MOVING TOWARD socialism.
The US is so far to the right it even puts Mexico to shame....
56 - Baronius
Since when is being on the right shameful?
57 - zingzing
when put into context?
58 - gonzo marx
whoa...neither being "Right" nor "Left" is shameful by any means
it's the methods and tactics some use to push their ideologies that hit the shameful mark
it's when Party is placed above Nation that some hit treasonous
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
59 - troll
moonraven - clearly I'm really stretching all the notions above...just trying to get an idea about what differentiates socialism from what's going on now in the States
so...it's not tax funded education or tax funded pensions or tax funded medicine - (but Scandinavian countries are called socialist for nothing more than this despite a coexisting system of private property)
it's not clear to me what 'left' and 'right' actually mean in a discussion of socialism
60 - bliffle
The USA now has a Sovietized economy, centrally administered by bureaucrats in the employ of giant monopolistic corporations who are called "congressmen".
It makes little difference whether these bureaucrats call themselves 'communists' or 'capitalists' their purpose is to delegate risk to the hapless general citizen/taxpayer and to privatize profit to the masters who have bought their allegiance.
It wasn't communists who sovietized our economy, as we feared years ago, but our former friends, corporate leaders, who have forsaken their roles as independent businessmen, to hide behind the facade afforded by corporate paper in order to exploit everyone, just like the commissars of yore.
61 - moonraven
Troll,
Let's put it this way: If the US is a socialist country, I will eat it--state by state.
There is no discussion of socialism occurring on this thread. A bald-headed bozo named Nalle tried to convince us that a) one third of the democratic party is card-carrying socialist and b) the world is flat.
I don't callthat a discussion.
62 - troll
so...the difference is that socialist countries are edible
I'll have to ponder that
perhaps Dave will tell us what he's talking about - how would those card carriers change the US - ?
63 - moonraven
The deal is, troll, that all those card-carrying socialists in the democratic party all fit very nicely under Nalle's bed....
64 - Dave Nalle
troll, i think that all the things you mention are indeed socialistic in character, even if they are not part of a system which is doctrinaire 'socialist' in toto.
as for what congressional 'progressives' want, it starts with expanding the welfare state and establishing a single-party system by marginalizing any opposition. then the targets would be destroying international corporatism and reducing the power of state governments and the federal government as a whole throigh treaties which give up a lot of national sovereignty. once we've established the supremacy of international treaty law over the constitution, it will be very clear which way things are going, but by then it will be too late.
a lot of conspiracists believe that many of these things are already happening or far along the way towards being achieved. i think they're overreacting, but i have to admit that the intent to turn america into a neutered giant is certainly in the playbooks of some of our leaders.
dave
65 - moonraven
Speaking of toto, it's clear that Nalle is not in Kansas--nor even on this planet.
Pure fantasy.
Too many hours playing those games--your brain is friend, Dave.
66 - moonraven
FRIED. Sorry. Nothing friendly about ole Dave.
67 - Jesse
After quietly following this thread for quite a while, I'm gonna pop a couple things in here...
1) Part of the reason "socialism" came up is because in a fit of under-thought writing, I said "socialization" when I meant "increased oversight and accountability for corporations, proportional to their size and market bulk." I tend to associate those two ideas, but I'm smart enough to know that real socialism involves far more hegemonic centralization than I'm comfortable with. Unfortunately, in this essay, I ignored the distinction and tossed the former out there in place of the latter. Oops. Still, makes for some interesting reading.
2) Dave, you can at least argue that the left is "expanding the welfare state," although I tend to see this as an inflammatory word for a fairly reasonable policy. However, the suggestion that anybody on the left is trying to "create a one-party system" is absolutely comical. The left is the only part of the political spectrum that's actually represented by multiple viable parties (democrats and green party, at this point... maybe democratic socialists too, eventually). The right is a big freakin' institutional mass of homogeneous policy.
And that aside, the parties compete in a forum that's fairly open (despite being a little handicapped at the moment), and the left does no more to "marginalize opposition" than the right does, or than any agent does within a competitive environment.
For eight years, the left has just been trying to find its footing and demand accountability from the governing branches. I think we've been aggressive about it because we've been behind on the official scoreboard for a while, but its nothing out of the scope of an open, oppositional dialogue between opposing viewpoints. The idea that there's some kind of hegemonic conspiracy of... I don't know... censorship by the left is a joke.
To put it simply, the government is not simply an international armed guard and police force. In fact, lately it seems like the rest of the world is going to hell whether we like it or not. This country needs more attention to domestic matters... more dialogue on civil rights, and more attention to the vast disparity in wealth. This doesn't necessarily mean socialism, but it does mean more a more nuanced domestic policy.
68 - Dave Nalle
2) Dave, you can at least argue that the left is "expanding the welfare state," although I tend to see this as an inflammatory word for a fairly reasonable policy.
how reasonable it is depends on how far it goes. IMO it's already gone way too far, so wanting to expand it at all seems insane.
However, the suggestion that anybody on the left is trying to "create a one-party system" is absolutely comical.
the silencing of dissent with things like the fairness doctrine seems like it could have no other intent.
The left is the only part of the political spectrum that's actually represented by multiple viable parties (democrats and green party, at this point... maybe democratic socialists too, eventually). The right is a big freakin' institutional mass of homogeneous policy.
now THAT is humorous. people on the right see the left as homogeneous, though i went to some pains to make it clear that the people i was talking about were identified as a special faction within the left as a whole. and no diversity on the right? can the democrats offer as distinct a set of presidential candidates? do they have the range represented by McCain vs. Paul? the GOP itself has more diversity than you realize, plus there are also the Constitutional and LIbertarian parties, which are certainly as viable as the Greens right now.
dave
69 - Jesse
Just a point of information... according to my limited reading, the Fairness Doctrine is designed to benefit the marginalized party in any particular media confrontation. Within the context of the "corporate media," which is a concept the left has leaned upon, the left would benefit significantly from a Fairness Doctrine. But in the context of the "liberal media," which has been a lingering stereotype of the right for quite a while now, the Fairness Doctrine would benefit the right.
So if we treat the partisan argument as a zero-sum game, what is this an argument over? Rights. Enforcing and/or restricting civil rights in the form of free speech? Yeah, I guess so. Free speech of the enormous corporate entities that now dominate the airwaves? THERE you go.
I'm not really sure I support the fairness doctrine in its full form, anyway... Forcing broadcast companies to contact and send transcripts to people? I'm not really down with that. But a law calling for an open airwaves policy and a balanced broadcast space when a public person is involved? That's broadening discourse, not restricting it.
That aside, you're right, I forgot about the libertarians, although it doesn't occur to me to fully classify them under the "right." They're too socially permissive for me to give them full credit for conservativism. And from my limited reading, the Constitutional party seems a right-wing analogue to the Green Party (need to do more research on this).
Still, I don't think you've anywhere near proven (or even demonstrated, really) that there's a unified effort by the left to unilaterally control the political environment in this country.
70 - gonzo marx
unlike Rove's statement of trying to build "a permanent Republican majority"
it's one thing for the political gangs to seek an advantage...that's what gangs are for, but either side trying to create some kind of permanent single party rule is ridiculous and anathema in the extreme
just my opinion...
Excelsior?
71 - Dave Nalle
gonzo, you don't think the rove equivalents of the left aren't just as eager to build their thousand year reich (robert)?
dave
72 - SonnyD
Isn't anyone going to mention that the Federal Reserve is not part of the federal government?
73 - gonzo marx
@ #71 i'll quote myself from right above, since it was apparently missed - "but either side trying to create some kind of permanent single party rule is ridiculous and anathema in the extreme"
do show me an example where anyone else has had the balls to say it where it could be recorded and i'll denounce the pigfucker just as soundly as i do Rove
in either case...i'l say it clearly again...ANY bastard that tries to permanently implement a single party rule in this country is a fucking traitor..i don't care what gang that kind of slime belongs to
now, can YOU say the same?
Excelsior?
74 - troll
SonnyD - that's why I threw the Fed into the mix...to point out that the US economy is steered by a non-democratic institution
75 - moonraven
Again, nonsense.
The 7 members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors are appointed by the President (in this case, The Decider) and the Senate confirm them for 14-year terms.
If it isn't part of the US government, I will be eating IT, too--district by district, in this case.