Purity tests - how the left is killing itself
terp said:
It's because progressivism is an orthodoxy.
Unlike say, um, libertarianism.
basil said:
What would you call yourself now?
compared to the rest of the U.S. I'm now a progressive/liberal. I didn't change. The major political parties both moved to the right.
Mr. Steve was prescient in starting this thread. Senator Warren put out a comprehensive M4A funding plan, and Bernie Sanders and his stans say it's "not progressive enough".
It's sad but all too predictable. Seems that to many, universal health care means "our M4A" or nothing. There used to be many ways to skin a cat and we could calmly discuss which way was the best (and frequently agree to disagree). I worry for our country.
When candidates are vying against one another for the same prize, what’s the best time for them and their supporters to drill down on what they believe are the shortcomings of their rivals? And do they and their supporters ever get to act like no one else can do the job they can?
Argue positively and quit the ad hominem attacks is what the candidates and their proxies should be doing. Why is everyone who disagrees with Sanders' healthcare plan a tool of the insurance industry?
ml1 said:
basil said:
What would you call yourself now?
compared to the rest of the U.S. I'm now a progressive/liberal. I didn't change. The major political parties both moved to the right.
Really? This is a common canard.
From an economic perspective: There's quite a bit of socialism being bandied about in the Democratic primary. When I was a kid, you would have been laughed off the stage for bringing that stuff up...even in the Dem primary.
Obama was elected as someone who opposed gay marriage. Now, you are a neanderthal if you are against gay marriage. You're not even allowed to bring it up in polite company. Hell, if you are against Men who identify as women using the women's room you will get the hairy eyeball.
Conservative is just Progressive driving the speed limit.
drummerboy said:
terp said:
It's because progressivism is an orthodoxy.
Unlike say, um, libertarianism.
Here's the difference. Libertarians never try to shut anyone up. Progressives are always changing the rules about language, etc. and if you are not on board they will try to silence you & make you wear the scarlet letter.
Libertarians just want to leave people to live their lives. Progressives want everyone to live their lives to their own ideals and set of ever changing rules and want to punish those who don't.
Steve said:
Argue positively and quit the ad hominem attacks is what the candidates and their proxies should be doing. Why is everyone who disagrees with Sanders' healthcare plan a tool of the insurance industry?
Since individually we can tune in and tune out such attacks as we like, I guess the question is whether they have an impact on the race, either for the nomination or in the general election. Are you concerned that these disdainful arguments will be effective in changing minds or mobilizing support (or, in the general, suppressing turnout)?
drummerboy said:
terp said:
It's because progressivism is an orthodoxy.
Unlike say, um, libertarianism.
LOL!
terp said:
Libertarians just want to leave people to live their lives.
And ignore the harm that just leaving them might allow.
True, a free society couldn't take care of all the people like the Soviets or Kim's N Korea. Even here we've seteven the poorest up with plush, safe government housing and high performing schools.
DaveSchmidt said:
Since individually we can tune in and tune out such attacks as we like, I guess the question is whether they have an impact on the race, either for the nomination or in the general election. Are you concerned that these disdainful arguments will be effective in changing minds or mobilizing support (or, in the general, suppressing turnout)?
Suppressing turnout.
terp said:
True, a free society couldn't take care of all the people like the Soviets or Kim's N Korea. Even here we've set even the poorest up with plush, safe government housing and high performing schools.
Interesting that you can't just admit that the downside of Libertarianism is that "just leaving people to live their lives" includes ignoring the harm that "just leaving them" might allow.
Also interesting that you instead decide to bring up governments that even PLP indicates are not Communist, but are Fascist.
You only have that opinion if you are an authoritarian through and through. Does there need to be a strong monopoly on violence to force people to take care of each other, or could people just take care of each other?
The thought that the USSR or N Korea are not Communist but are Fascist is just a counter-factual.
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
It's because progressivism is an orthodoxy.
Unlike say, um, libertarianism.
Here's the difference. Libertarians never try to shut anyone up. Progressives are always changing the rules about language, etc. and if you are not on board they will try to silence you & make you wear the scarlet letter.
Libertarians just want to leave people to live their lives. Progressives want everyone to live their lives to their own ideals and set of ever changing rules and want to punish those who don't.
I'm curious about the gay marriage and transgender examples you brought up earlier. Here in our liberal bubble, you are right that you generally meet with social opprobrium if you oppose same-sex marriage. I think transgender issues are a bit more hit-and-miss, but let's concede that too for now.
This isn't necessarily true elsewhere, though. There are plenty of communities in our country where being gay consigns you to social ostracism and even the danger of physical violence.
No doubt this is because people in those communities are not libertarian -- but then, so very few people are. So I do wonder what the libertarian response is here? In these communities, they very much do try to shut people up, meanwhile in communities like ours I suppose the charge is that are too loud in taking issue with such silencing. Is the libertarian answer that anti-gay and anti-transgender discrimination is just something we should accept?
I'm not sure how you can get more orthodox than distilling an ism down to "people free to live their lives".
What does that even mean?
terp said:
Really? This is a common canard.
From an economic perspective: There's quite a bit of socialism being bandied about in the Democratic primary. When I was a kid, you would have been laughed off the stage for bringing that stuff up...even in the Dem primary.
Obama was elected as someone who opposed gay marriage. Now, you are a neanderthal if you are against gay marriage. You're not even allowed to bring it up in polite company. Hell, if you are against Men who identify as women using the women's room you will get the hairy eyeball.
Conservative is just Progressive driving the speed limit.
maybe you are younger than me and aren't as aware of what the political climate used to be. Richard Nixon tried to enact Medicare for all and the EPA came into existence during his presidency. Bush 1 signed the Clean Water Act and raised taxes.
When I first starting voting in NJ I voted for a Republican congressman. And a couple of years later I voted for a Republican US Senate candidate.
Sure, nobody gave a damn about LGBT people, so that's progress.
But overall, the Republican Party moved far to the right, and the Democrats, led by the DLC moved right to occupy the place where Rockefeller Republicans used to reside. It's not a canard that the political landscape moved right. It's reality.
Steve said:
Suppressing turnout.
Thanks for your replies, Steve. They’ve helped me toss some things around in my own head.
ml1 said:
terp said:
Really? This is a common canard.
From an economic perspective: There's quite a bit of socialism being bandied about in the Democratic primary. When I was a kid, you would have been laughed off the stage for bringing that stuff up...even in the Dem primary.
Obama was elected as someone who opposed gay marriage. Now, you are a neanderthal if you are against gay marriage. You're not even allowed to bring it up in polite company. Hell, if you are against Men who identify as women using the women's room you will get the hairy eyeball.
Conservative is just Progressive driving the speed limit.
maybe you are younger than me and aren't as aware of what the political climate used to be. Richard Nixon tried to enact Medicare for all and the EPA came into existence during his presidency. Bush 1 signed the Clean Water Act and raised taxes.
When I first starting voting in NJ I voted for a Republican congressman. And a couple of years later I voted for a Republican US Senate candidate.
Sure, nobody gave a damn about LGBT people, so that's progress.
But overall, the Republican Party moved far to the right, and the Democrats, led by the DLC moved right to occupy the place where Rockefeller Republicans used to reside. It's not a canard that the political landscape moved right. It's reality.
And Bush 43 expanded Medicare Part D. And his predecessor had his unconstitutional ACA. So, I don't get your point. The state keeps getting larger, and the progressives keep asking for more. The conservatives don't want to expand as quickly, but once it's there, I don't see anyone on either side looking to turn the clock back outside of a Ron Paul or maybe a Thomas Massie, but they "off the reservation" to most.
I just don't see this move to the right at all.
drummerboy said:
I'm not sure how you can get more orthodox than distilling an ism down to "people free to live their lives".
What does that even mean?
It means people can make their own choices without the government doing it for them and where non-conformism is met with violence.
PVW said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
It's because progressivism is an orthodoxy.
Unlike say, um, libertarianism.
Here's the difference. Libertarians never try to shut anyone up. Progressives are always changing the rules about language, etc. and if you are not on board they will try to silence you & make you wear the scarlet letter.
Libertarians just want to leave people to live their lives. Progressives want everyone to live their lives to their own ideals and set of ever changing rules and want to punish those who don't.
I'm curious about the gay marriage and transgender examples you brought up earlier. Here in our liberal bubble, you are right that you generally meet with social opprobrium if you oppose same-sex marriage. I think transgender issues are a bit more hit-and-miss, but let's concede that too for now.
This isn't necessarily true elsewhere, though. There are plenty of communities in our country where being gay consigns you to social ostracism and even the danger of physical violence.
No doubt this is because people in those communities are not libertarian -- but then, so very few people are. So I do wonder what the libertarian response is here? In these communities, they very much do try to shut people up, meanwhile in communities like ours I suppose the charge is that are too loud in taking issue with such silencing. Is the libertarian answer that anti-gay and anti-transgender discrimination is just something we should accept?
I don't think this community is a good example. You will generally be met with social opprobrium for just being conservative.
You are in denial if you think we have not been steadily moving left socially.
terp said:
The thought that the USSR or N Korea are not Communist but are Fascist is just a counter-factual.
The foundation of Communism is power to the people. As "the people" are not the power in either case, it is Fascism.
terp said:
Does there need to be a strong monopoly on violence to force people to take care of each other, or could people just take care of each other?
What does "a strong monopoly on violence" mean?
That said, perhaps this answers your question: Even within families, which are basically mini-societies biologically optimized for caring, the expectation of "taking care of each other" can still fail tragically and horrifically.
To expect better results from a larger and more disconnected society than results from within families is... delusional.
In other words -- humans are not going to 'just take care of each other'. Especially not when there are limited resources and power/ownership over those resources to fight over.
terp said:
PVW said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
It's because progressivism is an orthodoxy.
Unlike say, um, libertarianism.
Here's the difference. Libertarians never try to shut anyone up. Progressives are always changing the rules about language, etc. and if you are not on board they will try to silence you & make you wear the scarlet letter.
Libertarians just want to leave people to live their lives. Progressives want everyone to live their lives to their own ideals and set of ever changing rules and want to punish those who don't.
I'm curious about the gay marriage and transgender examples you brought up earlier. Here in our liberal bubble, you are right that you generally meet with social opprobrium if you oppose same-sex marriage. I think transgender issues are a bit more hit-and-miss, but let's concede that too for now.
This isn't necessarily true elsewhere, though. There are plenty of communities in our country where being gay consigns you to social ostracism and even the danger of physical violence.
No doubt this is because people in those communities are not libertarian -- but then, so very few people are. So I do wonder what the libertarian response is here? In these communities, they very much do try to shut people up, meanwhile in communities like ours I suppose the charge is that are too loud in taking issue with such silencing. Is the libertarian answer that anti-gay and anti-transgender discrimination is just something we should accept?
I don't think this community is a good example. You will generally be met with social opprobrium for just being conservative.
You are in denial if you think we have not been steadily moving left socially.
I don't see how that's a reply to my question.
ml1 said:
Steve said:
What "inspired" this thread was the constant bashing of one another, among other places, here. We are all much closer to one another than we are to the GOP side. I worry that to the extent that if the nominee is not Tulsi or Bernie, the Biden/Buttigeig supporters won't be there on Election Day and if the nominee is Biden (Klinker, please don't rant), Harris, or Buttigieg, the Tulsi/Bernie supporters won't show up. Not really sure who might be offended if Warren is the nominee. We should be accentuating the positive rather than attacking each other. You have people like Nan and Paul calling anyone who disagrees with them neocons and people calling them every name in the book. In reality, the positions are a matter of degrees apart and not diametrically opposed as are the positions of the GOP.
nan and Paul represent about 0.5% of the electorate. A portion that is never guaranteed to vote Democratic and never has been part of the Democratic base. Don't worry about people like that.
A gratuitous, ignorant smear. You have no idea what you're talking about.
paulsurovell said:
A gratuitous, ignorant smear. You have no idea what you're talking about.
how is that a "smear?" Just tell me how I'm wrong instead of complaining. I'm totally ok with you proving my conclusion wrong.
terp said:
And Bush 43 expanded Medicare Part D. And his predecessor had his unconstitutional ACA. So, I don't get your point. The state keeps getting larger, and the progressives keep asking for more. The conservatives don't want to expand as quickly, but once it's there, I don't see anyone on either side looking to turn the clock back outside of a Ron Paul or maybe a Thomas Massie, but they "off the reservation" to most.
I just don't see this move to the right at all.
The Republican Party has moved far to the right. If there is such a thing as a "center" between the parties, it's moved right.
terp said:
PVW said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
It's because progressivism is an orthodoxy.
Unlike say, um, libertarianism.
Here's the difference. Libertarians never try to shut anyone up. Progressives are always changing the rules about language, etc. and if you are not on board they will try to silence you & make you wear the scarlet letter.
Libertarians just want to leave people to live their lives. Progressives want everyone to live their lives to their own ideals and set of ever changing rules and want to punish those who don't.
I'm curious about the gay marriage and transgender examples you brought up earlier. Here in our liberal bubble, you are right that you generally meet with social opprobrium if you oppose same-sex marriage. I think transgender issues are a bit more hit-and-miss, but let's concede that too for now.
This isn't necessarily true elsewhere, though. There are plenty of communities in our country where being gay consigns you to social ostracism and even the danger of physical violence.
No doubt this is because people in those communities are not libertarian -- but then, so very few people are. So I do wonder what the libertarian response is here? In these communities, they very much do try to shut people up, meanwhile in communities like ours I suppose the charge is that are too loud in taking issue with such silencing. Is the libertarian answer that anti-gay and anti-transgender discrimination is just something we should accept?
I don't think this community is a good example. You will generally be met with social opprobrium for just being conservative.
You are in denial if you think we have not been steadily moving left socially.
Who is more "progressive" -- the Democrat who supports overthrowing foreign governments (Syria, Venezuela) and who supports bigger military budgets than Trump asks for and bigger budgets and bigger powers of intrusion for the NSA -- or the Libertarian who opposes all of these things?
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
It's because progressivism is an orthodoxy.