US Politics Thread

[tented]

House ousts McCarthy as speaker in historic vote

 

[Fiero425]

House ousts McCarthy as speaker in historic vote

It had to happen! McCarthy compromised himself so much to get the job in the first place! The mid-term election resulted in Republicans w/ only a 5 vote majority! That made the real loons a lot more powerful to make McCarthy jump thru hoops to get anything passed! Pelosi could handle this situation; someone as weak & stupid as McCarthy was doomed to failure! I guess I s/b surprised he lasted this long! It was his destiny to fail!

 

[Moxie]

It had to happen! McCarthy compromised himself so much to get the job in the first place! The mid-term election resulted in Republicans w/ only a 5 vote majority! That made the real loons a lot more powerful to make McCarthy jump thru hoops to get anything passed! Pelosi could handle this situation; someone as weak & stupid as McCarthy was doomed to failure! I guess I s/b surprised he lasted this long! It was his destiny to fail!

You and I rarely agree, but you mostly nailed it here. I don't agree that he had give the power to the MAGA Republicans. Basically no one in the House understands why he let 8-9 people control him. If he were anything like a statesman, he's have reached out to the other representatives and looked for some common ground. I definitely agree that he is weak and stupid. He never stepped up to the job, so, yes, he was doomed to failure. No one even has any idea who the next Majority Leader might be. I sorely miss Nancy Pelosi, and I'm sure she's advising Hakeem Jeffries.

 

[Federberg]

It's terrible politics from the GOP. There was a time where one might not like them but you had to respect them. They were all about winning. Now this just seems performative. I honestly wouldn't be shocked if they try to find someone else, but because they're unable to get someone who can garner the votes, they end up going back to McCarthy. And this time I'm sure he'll force them to get rid of the stipulations that handcuffed him. Gaetz might just have played himself and his MAGA cronies. Going to be a fun watch anyway. Whoever it is will likely be slapped around by the Democrats

 

[Fiero425]

It's terrible politics from the GOP. There was a time where one might not like them but you had to respect them. They were all about winning. Now this just seems performative. I honestly wouldn't be shocked if they try to find someone else, but because they're unable to get someone who can garner the votes, they end up going back to McCarthy. And this time I'm sure he'll force them to get rid of the stipulations that handcuffed him. Gaetz might just have played himself and his MAGA cronies. Going to be a fun watch anyway. Whoever it is will likely be slapped around by the Democrats

Republicans have been a colossal mess for the last 30 years since their "Contract on America" was formed by Newt Gingrich during the Clinton years! Compromise became a dirty word not to be even spoken of or that Republican would be "primaried" & run out of politics! It didn't take long to have casualties; one of the 1st being Gingrich himself! He was thrown out as Speaker of the House! The "rightwing" became more radical as time went on and it seemed they were actually trying to sabotage their own country if it helped them to gain power and retain it! The most horrible things have occurred under their supposed leadership, but they ignore it, passing the buck to Democrats, & their idiot supporters eat it up! Dems like Clinton & Obama did great jobs, cutting debt, passing long-lasting legislation like healthcare, but all of it's been undermined by Republicans over the years hoping for failure! Presidents like "W" & Trump have blown up our Nat'l Debt, been complicit in 911, a coup to overthrow an election, & embarassed us internationally as they openly laugh at clowns like "The Donald!" They lost Boehner & Ryan as Speakers too as they couldn't control those Republican animals called Maga-Nuts! Now McCarthy makes 4 run out of office! How they point fingers at Dems for anything is absolutely amazing, but more amazing is their continued support! I'm disgusted!

 

[tented]

Dems like Clinton & Obama did great jobs, cutting debt, passing long-lasting legislation like healthcare, but all of it's been undermined by Republicans over the years hoping for failure!

I’ll never get over Republicans trying to pass themselves off as the financially responsible party, when the debt has increased significantly every time one of them is President. They conveniently forget it was Clinton who completely eliminated all debt, then W got in office and sent it soaring. We’ve never recovered from it. And yes, it was Obama who passed healthcare — modeled on the healthcare the Republican governor Romney enacted in Massachusetts, which came from a conservative think tank. But since it was Obama, the Republicans had to act like it was the most radical, worst plan ever.

 

[Fiero425]

I’ll never get over Republicans trying to pass themselves off as the financially responsible party, when the debt has increased significantly every time one of them is President. They conveniently forget it was Clinton who completely eliminated all debt, then W got in office and sent it soaring. We’ve never recovered from it. And yes, it was Obama who passed healthcare — modeled on the healthcare the Republican governor Romney enacted in Massachusetts, which came from a conservative think tank. But since it was Obama, the Republicans had to act like it was the most radical, worst plan ever.

I blame "the people!" They see what's going on, but don't seem to GAF as long as Republicans are running the show! It doesn't matter how much they embarass themselves and hurt the country, they're perfectly satisfied turning a blind eye! Allowing all that went on during Trump's tenure shows how "insane" these people have to be! McConnell's freezing up, staggering around, but is still the Senate Minority Leader! McCarthy sold his soul to be Speaker, but it was inevitable that he would be overthrown! He made it something assuredly would occur when he gave his caucus the power to throw him out w/ 1 dissenting vote! Nothing can be done by the HOUSE until they find another Speaker! What rational person would want the job w/ the Sword of Damocles hanging over their head? I'm so done, but that was the case 30 years ago w/ how they behaved during the Clinton years! It's only gotten worse as time's gone on! Thank goodness I'm a SR. & don't have to deal w/ it much longer!

 

[Moxie]

It's terrible politics from the GOP. There was a time where one might not like them but you had to respect them. They were all about winning. Now this just seems performative. I honestly wouldn't be shocked if they try to find someone else, but because they're unable to get someone who can garner the votes, they end up going back to McCarthy. And this time I'm sure he'll force them to get rid of the stipulations that handcuffed him. Gaetz might just have played himself and his MAGA cronies. Going to be a fun watch anyway. Whoever it is will likely be slapped around by the Democrats

I heard Richie Torres (D-NY) on the radio this morning. He says that Gaetz is only performing politics, not actually doing it, to your point about "performance." He also responded to McCarthy's claim that he got betrayed by the Democrats. That Pelosi promised to protect him from the extreme right-wing of his party. According to Torres, (and probably many others,) Pelosi loathes McCarthy, and would never promise him that. Plus, what a panty-waist, if he needs Democrats to protect him from his own party. He gave Gaetz the power to take him down by conceding to the procedural point that it would only take one member to call for a removal vote. It used to take a coalition of 20 members to call for it. He sealed his own fate.

McCarthy barely made it in as Speaker initially...I don't think he'll be rising from the dead. And even if he does, he'll be weaker than before, not stronger. The Republicans need a statesman/stateswoman, and they haven't got one. That is mostly because they don't know what they stand for anymore. As you say, you had to admire them at least for knowing how to win by coalescing over one or two clear issues, back in the day. Abortion being one. But with Trump, they stopped understanding where their center was. He gave them blue-collar white men, but they haven't quite known what to do with them. Are they supposed to be pro-union now? Or just quietly racist? After so many years of being cautious about Russia, Trump forces them to embrace it, and they refuse to help Ukraine. They're for big military, but not interventionism. (Just going back to Iraq...when did that change?) They try to be against big Government, but much of their new base relies on government benefits. (Very complicated trying to tell people that the government is the enemy when they rely on it heavily. So they try to dazzle them with distractions like "woke-ness" and books they can ban, over some outsized fear that their children are in peril.) A lot of this, thanks to Trump. Now, they get people like Gaetz and Taylor-Green who have no political agenda other than to burn it all down. They let Trump in the front door, because it gave them a presidency, and 3 supreme court appointments. Now they're trying to deal with the chaos that has ensued.

I'll buy a beer for anyone who guesses the next Speaker of the House.

 

[Kieran]

He gave them blue-collar white men, but they haven't quite known what to do with them. Are they supposed to be pro-union now? Or just quietly racist?

This is why Hillary lost. Blue collar white man is racist? The left used to pretend to serve the working class but now you’re all showing what you really think of us. Which I knew since I was a kid, by the way.

Meanwhile the Democrats are virtuously chasing the votes of trannies, child abusers, misogynists, homophobes and - black racists?

This is really the way you’ve all gone over there. Deplorables, indeed…

 

[Federberg]

I heard Richie Torres (D-NY) on the radio this morning. He says that Gaetz is only performing politics, not actually doing it, to your point about "performance." He also responded to McCarthy's claim that he got betrayed by the Democrats. That Pelosi promised to protect him from the extreme right-wing of his party. According to Torres, (and probably many others,) Pelosi loathes McCarthy, and would never promise him that. Plus, what a panty-waist, if he needs Democrats to protect him from his own party. He gave Gaetz the power to take him down by conceding to the procedural point that it would only take one member to call for a removal vote. It used to take a coalition of 20 members to call for it. He sealed his own fate.

McCarthy barely made it in as Speaker initially...I don't think he'll be rising from the dead. And even if he does, he'll be weaker than before, not stronger. The Republicans need a statesman/stateswoman, and they haven't got one. That is mostly because they don't know what they stand for anymore. As you say, you had to admire them at least for knowing how to win by coalescing over one or two clear issues, back in the day. Abortion being one. But with Trump, they stopped understanding where their center was. He gave them blue-collar white men, but they haven't quite known what to do with them. Are they supposed to be pro-union now? Or just quietly racist? After so many years of being cautious about Russia, Trump forces them to embrace it, and they refuse to help Ukraine. They're for big military, but not interventionism. (Just going back to Iraq...when did that change?) They try to be against big Government, but much of their new base relies on government benefits. (Very complicated trying to tell people that the government is the enemy when they rely on it heavily. So they try to dazzle them with distractions like "woke-ness" and books they can ban, over some outsized fear that their children are in peril.) A lot of this, thanks to Trump. Now, they get people like Gaetz and Taylor-Green who have no political agenda other than to burn it all down. They let Trump in the front door, because it gave them a presidency, and 3 supreme court appointments. Now they're trying to deal with the chaos that has ensued.

I'll buy a beer for anyone who guesses the next Speaker of the House.

I take your point about McCarthy, you may be right. I certainly think it would have been a major error for the Dems to support him. They would have looked morally bankrupt themselves. Best to stand aside and let them fail. I also find it hard to believe that Pelosi would have made such promises. I could imagine Pelosi offering support for legislation (although I find it disturbing that she would allow herself to supplant her successor if she actually did that) on a case by case basis, and it's easy to imagine McCarthy being weaselly enough to pretend that such a promise would extend to support for the Speakership.

I would however be careful about looking at the GOP move towards blue collar workers as unique. You only have to look across the pond to Europe to see that this is a paradigm that's swept through the West. How this shifting of the political tectonic plates progresses is open to debate. I can tell you that already in the UK the so called red wall that led to Boris Johnson's landslide electoral victory is fraying if not disintegrating. There are specific reasons why it might be more sustainable in the US, not least the complete ineffectiveness of Democrats to connect with blue collar workers, which is largely due to woke capture of your party. I say that because the stance that progressives have been taking on immigration shows a lack of care for the concerns of blue collar workers. It's not helped that progressives tend to frame the discussion in terms of identity politics, when the fact is the problem is economic. These people fear for their jobs. And it's not just blue collar whites. Blue collar blacks are just as concerned! Even Latinos! As Bill Clinton once said.. 'it's the economy stupid'. The GOP has identified that as a major weakness of the Democrats but their fundamental lack of interest in the working class means that there are still opportunities for Dems to fix this problem. This is probably going to be a closer election than it should be. I hope.. I hope! Biden squeaks it out. The fact that the mid-terms resulted in more Dem Secretaries of State might just save the day. But the age concerns are a serious serious problem. If Gretchen Whitmer could take over as candidate I could imagine a blow out win for the Dems. I'm not sure Newson would be able to stop blue collar workers from fleeing the Dems. It has to be someone like Whitmer. But that's just fantasy talk. It's Biden vs Trump, and US voters and the rest of the World will be hostage to voters in swing states. C'est la vie...

 

[Moxie]

I take your point about McCarthy, you may be right. I certainly think it would have been a major error for the Dems to support him. They would have looked morally bankrupt themselves. Best to stand aside and let them fail. I also find it hard to believe that Pelosi would have made such promises. I could imagine Pelosi offering support for legislation (although I find it disturbing that she would allow herself to supplant her successor if she actually did that) on a case by case basis, and it's easy to imagine McCarthy being weaselly enough to pretend that such a promise would extend to support for the Speakership.

I'm not sure if Jordan (ugh) or Scalise are the answer, but I feel confident that there's no going back for McCarthy.

I haven't done a deep dive into the truth-o-meter as to what McCarthy said after he was ousted, but any notion that the Dems have a hand in his demise doesn't really pass the sniff test.

I would however be careful about looking at the GOP move towards blue collar workers as unique. You only have to look across the pond to Europe to see that this is a paradigm that's swept through the West. How this shifting of the political tectonic plates progresses is open to debate. I can tell you that already in the UK the so called red wall that led to Boris Johnson's landslide electoral victory is fraying if not disintegrating. There are specific reasons why it might be more sustainable in the US, not least the complete ineffectiveness of Democrats to connect with blue collar workers, which is largely due to woke capture of your party. I say that because the stance that progressives have been taking on immigration shows a lack of care for the concerns of blue collar workers. It's not helped that progressives tend to frame the discussion in terms of identity politics, when the fact is the problem is economic. These people fear for their jobs. And it's not just blue collar whites. Blue collar blacks are just as concerned! Even Latinos! As Bill Clinton once said.. 'it's the economy stupid'. The GOP has identified that as a major weakness of the Democrats but their fundamental lack of interest in the working class means that there are still opportunities for Dems to fix this problem. This is probably going to be a closer election than it should be. I hope.. I hope! Biden squeaks it out. The fact that the mid-terms resulted in more Dem Secretaries of State might just save the day. But the age concerns are a serious serious problem. If Gretchen Whitmer could take over as candidate I could imagine a blow out win for the Dems. I'm not sure Newson would be able to stop blue collar workers from fleeing the Dems. It has to be someone like Whitmer. But that's just fantasy talk. It's Biden vs Trump, and US voters and the rest of the World will be hostage to voters in swing states. C'est la vie...

I don't think I've said that the blue collar move to the right in the US is unique. I understand it's a trend in the West, generally. Some of the reasons may be specific to the US, or certainly more deep-rooted (because we have a longer history of mass-immigration, and racism, than most other Western countries. We ARE a country of immigrants. A lot of other countries are a bit newer to grappling with a huge influx of immigrants. Not the UK, so much, but still, less than the US.

The rise of populism has a lot to do with the fear of job loss. We agree on this. I'm going to stick to US politics here. This has a deep history in the US. With the end of slavery, there was a big push by the empowered class to divide the underclass of whites and blacks, lest they work together for a better situation. They created a zero-sum game, whereby they told people that if some got more, they'd get less. They fostered racism, because dividing the underclass was a bonus for the upper-class. Pit them against each other for crumbs.

The Democrats were long-seen as the champions of the working-class, and long had the support of the unions. The seeds of this change came in the 60s, when the Dems supported civil rights, and the War on Poverty. The "Dixie-crats" felt more and more alienated from the Democratic party, and eventually moved to become Republicans.

Not to review the entire US political history, which I'm sure you're pretty conversant with, but to your point that Democrats have a "fundamental lack of interest" in the working class, I disagree. They actually still champion the working class better than Republicans do. Republicans support major tax cuts for the wealthy, tax breaks for corporations, "personhood" for corporations. But they've done a better job of dividing people over "fear of the other." The zero sum game. If someone else gets, you lose.

I don't agree that "woke-capture" is at fault, except that the Republicans have embraced it, and made it a bugaboo. Someone is stealing your country and making it something you don't recognize! The boogie man is out to get you! Many things for another post

 

[Kieran]

The Democrats were long-seen as the champions of the working-class, and long had the support of the unions. The seeds of this change came in the 60s, when the Dems supported civil rights, and the War on Poverty. The "Dixie-crats" felt more and more alienated from the Democratic party, and eventually moved to become Republicans.

Not to review the entire US political history, which I'm sure you're pretty conversant with, but to your point that Democrats have a "fundamental lack of interest" in the working class, I disagree. They actually still champion the working class better than Republicans do. Republicans support major tax cuts for the wealthy, tax breaks for corporations, "personhood" for corporations. But they've done a better job of dividing people over "fear of the other." The zero sum game. If someone else gets, you lose.

I don't agree that "woke-capture" is at fault, except that the Republicans have embraced it, and made it a bugaboo. Someone is stealing your country and making it something you don't recognize! The boogie man is out to get you! Many things for another post

Your reading of history might be slightly biased here. The Democrats were always the party of slavery and racism - and it was Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, which was hugely supported by Republicans.

There are similarities everywhere with regards to the reaction to mass illegal immigration. Of course there will be fears that people will lose jobs. These fears are legitimate, because there aren’t huge numbers of doctors or CEO’s operating illicitly in the black market. It tends to be that the working class are affected most. Their fears founded on two things: a sense of neglect from - and mistrust of - the political class, and a real life struggle against being undercut in wages by the new arrivals.

Both of these are legitimate. To respond to the first - and to defend themselves - the political elite tend to frame the working class the way coastal Democrats like you do, as being racist, ‘quietly’ or not. This is prejudice and snobbery but its roots are probably more interesting. I think it’s like the Trudeau-predicament during covid: when things don’t go your way with truckers, call ‘em racists. This is common among the left (and the right), casual name-calling and character assassination. Rather than deal with the issue, discredit the opponent.

But also I think on the left today we see them shifting away from the working class and pampering their new fetish, which is identity politics. This is where woke-capture is real. Did you like Ibram X. Kendi and his black racism? Did you support BLM when they rioted? Do you think trans is harmless and that affirmative trans care is compassionate? Do you think Antifa are ‘just an idea?’ Are you in favour of open borders to allow illegal immigrants to freely enter? Do you hold white conservative Christians in disdain? I could go on. Do you ever look at things from the other sides perspective? I’m speaking rhetorically here, about the left.

The working class have let the left down. And the left (and especially the far left) have always been about the class system. Now the new class systems they champion are the ones made up by identity groups. The working class didn’t bring about the revolution, but identity groups can. They set people against each other. Gender isn’t real. It’s a social construct. Racism is endemic to white people. History is a lie told by white people. There’s an interesting topic brewing regarding a recent BBC show which tells us that Stonehenge was built by black people. I haven’t deep dived on this yet, but I see it bubbling in different forms of media. Truth is being overthrown, and in this way, the revolution succeeds.

This is how the left have become the side of the aisle that embraces any new fad that disturbs things. When you talk about a side ‘fostering racism’ and causing division, it’s the left that’s successfully doing that. From my experience, the left have never cared about the working class. I learned that early, growing up where I did. Sure, some of them did, just like some of the right did, but generally there was always another agenda…

 

[Moxie]

Your reading of history might be slightly biased here. The Democrats were always the party of slavery and racism - and it was Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, which was hugely supported by Republicans.

As I said, I was trying to avoid a long retelling of US History, so my mention of the Dixie-crats was a way of getting to that. I didn't really want to go all the way back to the Civil War, and I think everyone knows that Lincoln was a Republican. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed by a majority of Senators and Congresspeople in both parties, though a larger majority of Republicans, that's true. But the vast majority of the opposition came from the South, and those eventually moved over to the Republican party. I think it's too much to say that "The Democrats were always the party of slavery and racism." Make no mistake...slavery was supported by whites in the North and the South, and across parties, because it benefitted them financially. And it was based on racist ideas. Lincoln didn't have an easy time getting support for his Emancipation Proclamation. He himself wasn't even 100% on board with it, initially.

There are similarities everywhere with regards to the reaction to mass illegal immigration. Of course there will be fears that people will lose jobs. These fears are legitimate, because there aren’t huge numbers of doctors or CEO’s operating illicitly in the black market. It tends to be that the working class are affected most. Their fears founded on two things: a sense of neglect from - and mistrust of - the political class, and a real life struggle against being undercut in wages by the new arrivals.

I understand that, and don't disagree, though some of it is also legal immigration. Plenty of people come legally to the US, and some of them are PhD's and even medical doctors in their own countries, but then they have to take lower-wage jobs until they can get re-certified in the US, if they can. Though, mostly, yes, low-wage workers. My main point in calling out the difference was that it's something that we in the US have been dealing with for a long time, so the history is complicated, and including by the history of slavery in this country. I think that Europe and the near-East are rather newer to the issue.

Both of these are legitimate. To respond to the first - and to defend themselves - the political elite tend to frame the working class the way coastal Democrats like you do, as being racist, ‘quietly’ or not. This is prejudice and snobbery but its roots are probably more interesting. I think it’s like the Trudeau-predicament during covid: when things don’t go your way with truckers, call ‘em racists. This is common among the left (and the right), casual name-calling and character assassination. Rather than deal with the issue, discredit the opponent.

I think this reading is rather biased on your part, since you called me out on bias, and also rather superficial. As I said above, the political elite long ago made efforts to divide the working class by race, in an effort to keep the working class down. In recent times, there has been a lot of "dog-whistling" on the right in this direction, of which Trump is only the most egregious example. The Tea Party Movement, which came before, was arguably racist in its roots. It also wasn't a "grass-roots" movement. "Populist," "originalist," this was not an inclusive movement. When it started in 2009, as I asked my very sweet, Christian mother, "where did these people come from?!" And she said, "They just woke up and realized someone had elected a Black President." Instead of becoming post-racist, since the election of Obama, we have uncovered the deep-seeded racist roots in this country, and, in my opinion, with help. Are you trying to tell me that the US isn't a racist country? Because I'm here to tell you we still have a problem.

But also I think on the left today we see them shifting away from the working class and pampering their new fetish, which is identity politics. This is where woke-capture is real. Did you like Ibram X. Kendi and his black racism? Did you support BLM when they rioted? Do you think trans is harmless and that affirmative trans care is compassionate? Do you think Antifa are ‘just an idea?’ Are you in favour of open borders to allow illegal immigrants to freely enter? Do you hold white conservative Christians in disdain? I could go on. Do you ever look at things from the other sides perspective? I’m speaking rhetorically here, about the left.

Since it's rhetorical, I won't respond. But I do find it insulting. I've asked you before to stop telling me what I think.

The working class have let the left down. And the left (and especially the far left) have always been about the class system. Now the new class systems they champion are the ones made up by identity groups. The working class didn’t bring about the revolution, but identity groups can. They set people against each other. Gender isn’t real. It’s a social construct. Racism is endemic to white people. History is a lie told by white people. There’s an interesting topic brewing regarding a recent BBC show which tells us that Stonehenge was built by black people. I haven’t deep dived on this yet, but I see it bubbling in different forms of media. Truth is being overthrown, and in this way, the revolution succeeds.

This is how the left have become the side of the aisle that embraces any new fad that disturbs things. When you talk about a side ‘fostering racism’ and causing division, it’s the left that’s successfully doing that. From my experience, the left have never cared about the working class. I learned that early, growing up where I did. Sure, some of them did, just like some of the right did, but generally there was always another agenda…

The working class haven't let the left down. There is still huge support. A lot of people understand that the right is the party of the rich and of corporations. I'm not sure where you get that from. Yes, there are people that vote against their own self interest, and there are people that are held in the thrall of a strongman in Trump. I 100% disagree with you that it's the "left" that are fostering racism. I would ask at the very least that you see it coming from both sides. On Jan. 6th 2021, the rioters used racial slurs against the Capitol police, often. Those Capitol police were really traumatized by that, and have spoken about it. I know you have a problem with the Black Lives Matter Movement, but Black people getting killed for being Black is a real thing. Yes, there was rioting. But, did you notice that, when BLM protested in DC, the Capitol was ringed with riot police? Yet, when armed Trump supports came to DC, saying that they would go to the Capitol, there was no such guard? You don't live here. It's not theoretical.

The "left" in your country is not the same as the "left" in mine. Don't confuse them or conflate them. First of all, no matter what gets said out there, there really isn't anything close to socialism in this country. Our political spectrum runs from far right to just left of center. We could barely get reasonable healthcare passed in this country, because it smacked of socialism.

 

[Kieran]

I understand that, and don't disagree, though some of it is also legal immigration. Plenty of people come legally to the US, and some of them are PhD's and even medical doctors in their own countries, but then they have to take lower-wage jobs until they can get re-certified in the US, if they can. Though, mostly, yes, low-wage workers. My main point in calling out the difference was that it's something that we in the US have been dealing with for a long time, so the history is complicated, and including by the history of slavery in this country. I think that Europe and the near-East are rather newer to the issue.

Legal immigration isn’t an issue. It’s the huge swathes of illegal immigrants who are. And these numbers are not only growing, but there’s seemingly no desire to control them, either in Europe or the USA. I remember when Obama was known as the Deporter in Chief. He was actually following the law. This is a very important issue that tends to get sentimentalised by the left. And it’s made worse by people who insist that open borders are compassionate.

I think this reading is rather biased on your part, since you called me out on bias, and also rather superficial. As I said above, the political elite long ago made efforts to divide the working class by race, in an effort to keep the working class down. In recent times, there has been a lot of "dog-whistling" on the right in this direction, of which Trump is only the most egregious example. The Tea Party Movement, which came before, was arguably racist in its roots. It also wasn't a "grass-roots" movement. "Populist," "originalist," this was not an inclusive movement. When it started in 2009, as I asked my very sweet, Christian mother, "where did these people come from?!" And she said, "They just woke up and realized someone had elected a Black President." Instead of becoming post-racist, since the election of Obama, we have uncovered the deep-seeded racist roots in this country, and, in my opinion, with help. Are you trying to tell me that the US isn't a racist country? Because I'm here to tell you we still have a problem.

I know you have a problem with race. You currently have a president who told a black man to his face that “if you’re not sure who to vote for in this election, you ain’t black.” I get that you have a problem there, with racism from all sides. Systemic racism against Asians when it comes to getting into Harvard. Antiracist racists. Black racists. Whites who see being white as a problem they need to keep apologising for. I sympathise with America and its race issue. You seem - on both sides - determined to make it worse.

Since it's rhetorical, I won't respond. But I do find it insulting. I've asked you before to stop telling me what I think.

And yet, I bet I know the answers to all those questions.

The working class haven't let the left down.

I don’t mean that literally. I meant that the left always pretended to care for the working class, and when the working class failed to deliver the revolution, you moved onto other groups, and now get to freely insult the working class, without conscience. Including dismissing them and their concerns as being racist.

I 100% disagree with you that it's the "left" that are fostering racism. I would ask at the very least that you see it coming from both sides. On Jan. 6th 2021, the rioters used racial slurs against the Capitol police, often. Those Capitol police were really traumatized by that, and have spoken about it. I know you have a problem with the Black Lives Matter Movement, but Black people getting killed for being Black is a real thing. Yes, there was rioting. But, did you notice that, when BLM protested in DC, the Capitol was ringed with riot police? Yet, when armed Trump supports came to DC, saying that they would go to the Capitol, there was no such guard? You don't live here. It's not theoretical.

I do see that racism in America comes from both sides. I said so above. I wish you’d acknowledge the racism on your side. Black people being killed for being black is terrible, and it happens. It’s also terrible that black people in general in America commit so much more violent crime than other demographic. All of this is bound to affect how police approach them. The fact is that in interactions between black people and the cops, it’s the cops who are most in danger. But what do your side say to this? Defund the police. Abolish the police! With no gratitude, and seemingly no understanding of how difficult their job is.

Our political spectrum runs from far right to just left of center.

I cannot take this seriously. This is tribalism on steroids. Your country is overrun by identity politics and you seemingly are unaware of who wrote the manifesto on reducing people to their group or class identity. Identity politics is Marxist to its core. This is where the far left revolutionaries turned when the working class left them down. This is now the single most divisive political action in western politics, and it’s been sensualised and heightened by nonsense such as intersectionality, and antiracism. Your BLM Marxists are far left. Antifa is far left. The Squad are far left. The new revolutionary gender ideologies are brought to you by the far left. Friedrich Engels wrote about the sources of power in the late 1800’s and gave us the hatred of the ‘patriarchy’, a crush theme of the far left.

This is what our discussion of cultural Marxism was about. If you do not see that there’s a far left in the west and it’s destroying your country first and foremost, I can only conclude that you don’t listen to any news or opinions of anybody who isn’t in your tribe. You’re repeating word for word things that I might hear on CNN or MSNBC…

 

[Federberg]

 

[El Dude]

@Kieran, while I agree with much of your critique of American leftism, I will say that it is more split than you might think. There are still many on the left who are more "left libertarian" - that believe in free speech, are against vax mandates, aren't brainwashed with identity politics or "Cultural Marxism," and more focused on class -- and thus embrace the working class, regardless of race, with focus on working class solidarity. Of course such folks are a minority, but not a tiny one.

I also think it is overly simplistic to put everything on a left-right spectrum. The Political Compass, which has an economic axis of left-right and a social axis of authoritarian-libertarian, is a bit more nuanced. I think what you are doing is saying that this newish breed of "authoritarian leftists" equates with all leftists. The authoritarian left is the woke left of AOC and Ibram X Kendi; and the Democratic Party has essentially adopted its clothing, even if it remains very much a centrist party, in terms of economics. So I agree that the mainstream left, be it the Democratic Party or the "boutique progressive" movement (e.g. the Squad and so-called indie news like The Young Turks, plus Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, etc), is very much of this ilk.

I personally think that the more we do away with the tribal factions of "left" vs. "right," the better - and the more free we become of the ruling class parties. The situation, though, is extremely tribal - so it has become less about left vs right in an economic sense than it is about which tribe you are in, Blue or Red. But this is extremely muddled, because the "new left" now embraces censorship, division of people into endless identities, is pro Big Pharma, and now embraces endless war (so-called leftists are agreeing with the neocon hawkishness of Lyndsay Graham). Up is down, down is up.

The last thing the establishment parties (Dems and Republicans) want is class solidarity, like we see in the clip below. @Moxie is right that the ruling class has been playing divide and conquer, furthering division between different groups to maintain their power, but I think misses the degree to which the "fake left" (aka Democratic Party, including its mainstream media outlets - from CNN and MSNBC to WaPo and NYT, and even NPR) still perpetuate this, or how the views of a Kendi (et al) actually end up serving the ruling class. Oh, and now we have Hillary Clinton talking about "form deprogramming" of "MAGA cultists" yet seemingly unaware of her own "Blue MAGA" cult.

 

[El Dude]

LOL at JoJoFromJerz. She's pretty much the embodiment of "Blue MAGA" cultism. And don't get me started on HRC.

 

[Kieran]

@Kieran, while I agree with much of your critique of American leftism, I will say that it is more split than you might think. There are still many on the left who are more "left libertarian" - that believe in free speech, are against vax mandates, aren't brainwashed with identity politics or "Cultural Marxism," and more focused on class -- and thus embrace the working class, regardless of race, with focus on working class solidarity. Of course such folks are a minority, but not a tiny one.

I also think it is overly simplistic to put everything on a left-right spectrum. The Political Compass, which has an economic axis of left-right and a social axis of authoritarian-libertarian, is a bit more nuanced. I think what you are doing is saying that this newish breed of "authoritarian leftists" equates with all leftists. The authoritarian left is the woke left of AOC and Ibram X Kendi; and the Democratic Party has essentially adopted its clothing, even if it remains very much a centrist party, in terms of economics. So I agree that the mainstream left, be it the Democratic Party or the "boutique progressive" movement (e.g. the Squad and so-called indie news like The Young Turks, plus Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, etc), is very much of this ilk.

I personally think that the more we do away with the tribal factions of "left" vs. "right," the better - and the more free we become of the ruling class parties. The situation, though, is extremely tribal - so it has become less about left vs right in an economic sense than it is about which tribe you are in, Blue or Red. But this is extremely muddled, because the "new left" now embraces censorship, division of people into endless identities, is pro Big Pharma, and now embraces endless war (so-called leftists are agreeing with the neocon hawkishness of Lyndsay Graham). Up is down, down is up.

The last thing the establishment parties (Dems and Republicans) want is class solidarity, like we see in the clip below. @Moxie is right that the ruling class has been playing divide and conquer, furthering division between different groups to maintain their power, but I think misses the degree to which the "fake left" (aka Democratic Party, including its mainstream media outlets - from CNN and MSNBC to WaPo and NYT, and even NPR) still perpetuate this, or how the views of a Kendi (et al) actually end up serving the ruling class. Oh, and now we have Hillary Clinton talking about "form deprogramming" of "MAGA cultists" yet seemingly unaware of her own "Blue MAGA" cult.

Thanks for that brother, it’s very interesting. Glad to see that somebody on the left knows about the far left, the trouble they’re causing, and how welcome they are in the White House. I don’t equate all people on the left with the far left, by the way. For instance, Bret Weinstein and Bill Maher are on the left differently, but they’re opposed to the far left. They catch flak for that. A lot of western institutions are bowing in fear to the far left.

I’ve heard of the libertarian left, and I think that when I did the political compass test a few years ago, that was where I was found. I hear them on YouTube and other places. They’re largely attacked by tribalists, far as I can see, because they dared to critique the prevailing authoritarian culture.

I totally agree about the left-right thing. I said it before here, that if somebody simply identifies as ‘right wing’ or ‘left wing’ then they’ve surrendered their brains to the demagogues trend-setters and hustlers. Likewise, to an extent, if we’re affiliated closely with one party or another. Political parties should earn our vote. It ought not to be a given who we’ll vote for, and yet it is.

If I was to think of where I am politically, I would say I’m conservative on social issues, largely, or libertarian when it comes to a lot of social issues, and when I comes to welfare and health, I would be more liberal, but that’s because I’m a Catholic, not because I would think politically with regards to the less well off, and those of us who can’t afford healthcare. I would think in terms of brothers and sisters, of us all as a community that looks after each other.

The terms ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are more useful for me than left wing-right wing for political thinking, because understood properly they suggest an understanding of society, that some things must be preserved because they’re good, but also that change is necessary, though both might disagree on the details and the measures. Collaboration is possible because nobody is entrenched is a self-serving tribe. They’re issues-based in their politics. We’re replacing political thinking with indoctrination and agenda-based activism.

Modern tribal politics is a curse everywhere it’s found…

 

[Kieran]

LOL at JoJoFromJerz. She's pretty much the embodiment of "Blue MAGA" cultism. And don't get me started on HRC.

I won’t!

 

[tented]

Glad to see that somebody on the left knows about the far left, the trouble they’re causing, and how welcome they are in the White House. I don’t equate all people on the left with the far left, by the way. For instance, Bret Weinstein and Bill Maher are on the left differently, but they’re opposed to the far left. They catch flak for that. A lot of western institutions are bowing in fear to the far left.

I agree with a lot of what Maher says these days. He’s a classic liberal, not a far-left, woke liberal — which is how I view myself as well. I certainly see the trouble the far left is causing, and hesitate even using the word “left” in any description of them, because they’re really fascists in their attitudes and actions. That institutions are cowering in their wake is disgusting and weak. It’s a quick fix to get them to shut up and focus their hate on some other group.

I’ve heard of the libertarian left, and I think that when I did the political compass test a few years ago, that was where I was found. I hear them on YouTube and other places. They’re largely attacked by tribalists, far as I can see, because they dared to critique the prevailing authoritarian culture.

I believe that’s where I landed as well on that compass test. Kind of left of center/libertarian, but not far left or far right.

I totally agree about the left-right thing. I said it before here, that if somebody simply identifies as ‘right wing’ or ‘left wing’ then they’ve surrendered their brains to the demagogues trend-setters and hustlers. Likewise, to an extent, if we’re affiliated closely with one party or another. Political parties should earn our vote. It ought not to be a given who we’ll vote for, and yet it is.

This is the result of the deep divisions which have been created over the last few decades. In something I read or watched a while back, someone pointed out that in the mid-70s the Democrats and Republicans were having a hard time differentiating themselves before (I think) the 1976 Presidential election — an astonishing place for them to have been considering where they are today. But there really was much more consensus on issues back then. It was much easier to get 2/3 of Congress to vote for or against something. Supreme Court judges were typically either voted in unanimously or close to it.

If I was to think of where I am politically, I would say I’m conservative on social issues, largely, or libertarian when it comes to a lot of social issues, and when I comes to welfare and health, I would be more liberal, but that’s because I’m a Catholic, not because I would think politically with regards to the less well off, and those of us who can’t afford healthcare. I would think in terms of brothers and sisters, of us all as a community that looks after each other.

We’re just about on the same page here. Maybe even the same page. It’s tricky to use certain words these days because their meanings have been twisted or decimated. In my mind, I’m liberal on social issues, but in the classic liberal way, a la Bill Maher. But I’m certainly not woke liberal, in the current use of the word “woke.” I’m socialist, I guess, in that I think healthcare should be available to all, not just those who can afford it. I’m anti-capitalism, some would say, because I think Amazon has essentially now become a monopoly, Big Pharma has way too much power in Washington, and politicians in general are beholden to money and their own self-preservation. But anti-capitalism, as I think of it, does not automatically equate to communism, if you know what I mean.

The terms ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are more useful for me than left wing-right wing for political thinking, because understood properly they suggest an understanding of society, that some things must be preserved because they’re good, but also that change is necessary, though both might disagree on the details and the measures. Collaboration is possible because nobody is entrenched is a self-serving tribe. They’re issues-based in their politics. We’re replacing political thinking with indoctrination and agenda-based activism.

Modern tribal politics is a curse everywhere it’s found…

Maybe we need to get rid of “conservative” and “liberal” as well as “left wing” and “right wing” — all they do is create division, instead of the collaboration you rightly want to see. These umbrella terms are not essential. There isn’t a need to be part of a group, when we’re all individuals, especially when we’re presented with only two groups.