Aside from the conflation of liberals and leftists, this is mostly incorrect about the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. The Clean Air Act was passed under Johnson, but major Amendments that expanded the regulatory power of the federal government were passed under Nixon and Bush (the first one). The Clean Water Act was signed into law under Nixon, who also pushed for the creation of EPA. Republicans are shit on the environment now, but it used to be a way more bipartisan issue, and Lawrence O’Donnell apparently doesn’t know that.
It’s fucking hilarious how the commits under this is full of far left MAGA proving why any hope of uniting can never happen.
unfortunately the left has no idea how to unite. We get caught up on too many different issues to actually come together and be pragmatic.
I’m actually really concerned that the left might not even understand what the word pragmatic means.
Blue conservatives love to pretend they are leftists. That way anyone to the left of them seem like “unreasonable radicals”.
Proving the point perfectly. 😆
lol.
But ignorant chodes in their parent’s basement keep telling me Democrats have never done anything of value.
Do your homework, folks.
Liberals do love stealing credit for socialist activism after the fact and pretending they supported it all along, this is true.
By their very nature, liberals and leftists are more in favor of social supports and gender/race equality aĉetis the board. The only people I’ve ever met with thoughts about inequalities between genders and races have been white conservatives longing for the old days where they could say and do whatever they wanted, as long as it wasn’t against another white man.
Fuck all that shit man.
And I want to be clear that, though a lot of the right proclaim to be Christians, a lot of what they support is in direct opposition to Christian ideals.
Love your neighbor. Don’t covet, or steal. Take care of the poor and needy. Give to charity.
Instead, capitalists hide behind a thin veil of what they claim is Christianity to try to trick people into agreeing with them so that they can get what they want… Which is your money… They don’t give a fuck about you.
Tbf, democrats were the ones opposing many in that list… but they also weren’t ‘liberal’ back then either.
All of these were fought for with literal blood well before any liberals decided it was in their interest to push legislation. Don’t delude yourselves by thinking the libs did these things out of the kindness of their heart.
Don’t delude yourselves by thinking the libs did these things out of the kindness of their heart.
No, they did it because their lib constituents wanted it in large enough numbers that they had to represent the will of their constituents. Because liberalism builds and conservatism destroys.
So instead of posting useless, divisive bullshit to demonize lib legislators, let’s get together and work against the fucking fascists.
I suggest learning about the ratchet effect and how it influences modern politics in america. Liberalism and leftism are two different things. Liberalism, in america especially, is a right wing ideology that seeks to act at the “rational” party. They will not act unless, as you said, their constituents make it clear they will lose their seat without said action.
Democrats fight progressives more than they fight Republicans. The ratchet effect was coined for a reason. I’ve seen it for over 10 years as a voter.
I don’t disagree, but I think it’s pretty clear Lawrence is using the American colloquial definition of liberal rather than the academic definition.
The academic definition technically makes sense. I’m pretty sure even Euros understand the colloquial, North American sense of liberal, because it shows up in their older songs: the 1979 Logical Song by Supertramp from UK contains the lyrics
I said, now, watch what you say, they’ll be calling you a radical
A liberal, oh, fanatical, criminalThe ones in denial about this just have their heads so far up their ass that they can’t tolerate liberalism (academically, the doctrine that favors personal freedom by pursuing individual rights, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, equality before the law) having anything to do with leftism (political ideologies that pursue social equality & egalitarianism in opposition to social hierarchy). The usual 2-axis political map consists of left–right axis (degree of social equality) & libertarian–authoritarian axis (degree of personal freedom): left & libertarian are possible.
If a leftist says they oppose liberalism, and liberalism is on the libertarian side of the libertarian–authoritarian axis, then where does that place them on the libertarian–authoritarian axis?
Modern day liberals are often on the libertarian right section of that graph that favors capitalism. Most leftists are on the libertarian left that favors socialism. Happy to help.
Edit: More often than not, american liberal politicians are riding the libertarian/authoritarian line on the capitalist side too. Thats why they always increase the police and military budgets.
Modern day liberals are often on the libertarian right section of that graph that favors capitalism.
So, you’re going to ignore the liberal & progressive factions whose caucuses had often been dominating the modern liberal party since Obama?
Disagreeing with you about private property & a mixed-market economy doesn’t mean they’re any less left for pursuing policies that favor social equality & egalitarianism (the definition of leftism), eg, civil rights, labor rights, environmental justice, social justice, market regulations, social safety net programs.
Your narrowminded, exclusionary, incorrect view of leftism denies their conformance to scholarly definitions.
The scholarly definition of liberalism is neither left nor right: it opposes authoritarianism by standing for personal freedom. Do the leftists here hostile to liberalism oppose the scholarly definition of it, too? Where does that place them on the libertarian–authoritarian axis?
Sure, just keep shifting the goal poat, that works well everytime and definitely makes you look rational
They’ve previously defended that Biden kept Mexicans in cages, you can ignore them.
Nah the instant I saw this post I just fucking knew the comments would be full of these fucking clowns. Just block the divisive trolls as soon as you see them and things will get much better
“Well ACKSHUALLY the party that literally passed these key pieces of progressive legislation deserve 0% of the credit! In fact liberals are worse than the conservatives, who we will never even bother to criticize! The libs are our true enemy!”
Even if you use the academic version it makes sense. Liberalism is the default ideology in the USA. The majority of the population at any point will be Liberals.
“the American colloquial definition” is the American colloquial term for propaganda
Left leaning liberalism = liberals in the USA. It ignores the right leaning liberals and is flawed.
No, “liberals” “in the USA” = everyone on the left in America, which is wrong and bad because it ignores all of the anti-capitalist people and silences them by labeling them with an explicitly pro-capitalist Ideology. The left is (at the very least) liberals and socialists and some kinds of anarchists, there is a lot they have in common they can work on but calling them all “liberals” distorts reality in a consequential way.
e; Scpelling is hard sometimes
“The left is (at the very least) liberals and socialists and some kinds of anarchists,”
This is a VERY Eurocentric perspective. What constitutes progressive/left views changes culture to culture.
This is a VERY Eurocentric perspective
Oh bullshit, there are and have been American anarchists and socialists who have worked with and sometimes worked against American liberals going back to at least the early 20th century. Like, just to grab the most obvious example, Frances Perkins was a member of the freakin Socialist Party of America for years before she joined FDRs cabinet as labor secretary and did a bunch of the New Deal stuff liberals pat themselves on the back for now.
No it is because there are more nations than what comprises the West. Your definition would not make any sense in one of the dozens of authoritarian nations that are still trying to determine IF human rights exist.
The POV you are advocating suggests every society faces the same struggles and questions and that isn’t true.
Given how much historical evil can be tied to Eurocentrism it us important to stomp it out when you see it.
Did the US liberals have to organize to propose, write, support, and ratify that legislation & enact those executive decisions? No. Did they? Yes. Did they want to? Yes.
I don’t see your point.
When something is popular enough, yes they do “have to” or they risk their seat to someone who will
The vast majority of eligible US voters align with liberal, moderate, or conservative:
American political ideologies conventionally align with the left–right political spectrum, with most Americans identifying as conservative, liberal, or moderate.
Where do you think the popularity came from?
You don’t really have point.
Denying liberals wanted & enacted those policies is creative mental gymnastics.
Had enough of a point that at least 60 other lemmings agreed with me, but you do you. Cant convicne everyone i suppose.
at least 60 other lemmings agreed with me
That means nothing: the planet is full of morons. Lemmy has a weird, dogmatic, ideological cult out of touch with reality that believes repeating their nonsense enough times makes it true. They’ll upvote whatever reinforces their deluded worldview.
The rest of us can point to conventional knowledge & laugh at their pathetic farce.
Not really. Civil rights absolutely, social security, kind of, the activists didn’t create the idea but they gave muscle to the labor movement to the point that FDR got elected in the first place and had the momentum so sure, clean air act and clean water act, you must be joking, those were just liberal government things. The things from that end of the spectrum are actually really good examples of why having a functioning government is a good thing even if it means “electoralism,” meaning it can’t all just be people in the streets fighting. You need both sides of the equation: The vigor and blood to push things forward, and then the paper and system to lock it in. Without either side of that, it doesn’t work.
More to the point, stop shitting on people who did good things. If you live in America, you benefit from all of the things on that list. Look for enemies elsewhere. This is the left’s favorite thing, to turn its guns exclusively on its own side, and it’s super good at it.
Yes, eco activists died for a lot of those movements too.
The point isnt to “turn guns on [our] own side,” it is to remind people that these movements and legistlations rest on the shoulders of giants, just like most everything else in our society
I really don’t think that Nixon was strongly motivated by eco activists. I mean, I get what you’re saying… like I said, the overall climate does make an impact on the “establishment” policies absolutely and the activism has to lead by about a hundred miles before the government starts catching up to it. I think on that front we’re saying more or less the same thing.
The right did a lot of that specifically to prevent indigenous people from using their traditional lands
I think this type of thinking ends up being quite self defeating.
We should evaluate all politicians as vessels to carry out the will of the people.
When you consider them as such, not as people or entities to assign blame, as your goal is to be pragmatic, you look at their incentives and track records instead.
I think leftists often have this self defeating problem of being unable to stomach the fact that they will not get their ideal politician, and there will be no sudden uprising.
As a result, they often will criticize the politicians closest too them too loudly, ending up supporting “both sides” notions that cause voter apathy and let quite literally fascists win instead.
What I am saying is that we have to be pragmatic.
Particularly for the US, people have to realize that yes, while the DNC sucks, the democrats are the only practical, realistic way for people to actually end up winning.
Its long, slow, and no fun at all, but people have to support them publicly, and acknowledge their faults in ways that don’t dissuade voters from voting for them. They then must also vote in increasingly progressive candidates in primaries and local politics.
Anything else is simply grabbing a foot gun, because this imperfect system is very slow, and won’t change over night.
Or we could actually work to build up our own communities and set a real workers party up. Otherwise we are at the whims of fascists and fascist lite
This is not realistic and only results in the fascist coming to power.
A system that is all or nothing or first past the post mathematically results in a 2 party system as any time one side fractures, the other side wins disincentivising people from fracturing and creating only 2 groups. You can’t escape this reality, so truly, the only option forward is long slow and unfun as described, because what you’ve described is essentially what Russian backed Jill Stein is, and exactly why Russia want her to steal votes from democrats.
The system you want can only come about after years of the boring, long, unfun stuff I described resulting in proportional representation. Anything other than proportional representation pushes any political system back down to 2 major sides and any other parties being largely irrelevant. Parliamentary systems make them slightly more relevant with coalitions and such, but still, you just can’t win the way you’ve described.
Not with that attitude.
Not with any attitude.
These are the realities of the american political system.
To ignore those realities is to support many many people being discriminated against and potential dying.
You can’t fix a system by ignoring it.
It is impossible, as in unlikely to the point that discussing it is counter productive, to start a new party, and win in the USA with its current system.
The presidency position is too powerful, gerrymandering, billionaire controlled media and voter suppression would make it too difficult to actually secure even one ounce of useful power in the house or congress, and you’d need to hit a critical mass quickly enough that fascism hadn’t already taken over (you’re already past this point).
Your only play, and I mean only, is somehow keeping democracy limping into 2026, campaigning your asses off for the democrats even though we all think they are mid, and somehow getting enough seats in the senate to impeach and remove trump.
There aren’t really any other viable win conditions.
We can’t just gleefully stick our heads in the sand and hope that wishful thinking cloud 9 dream idealistic goals will happen.
If you really think im advocating for ignoring the system, then you have completely misinterpretted my comments lmfao
How do you figure? I have explained why creating your own party cannot possibly work, so how would that be anything other than ignoring the system to chase an impossible goal?
Is ignoring the abandonment of the actual mechanisms of reform not ignoring the system? I think I am pretty justified in interpreting it that way, but you didn’t really expand and just game me a “Not with that attitude.” with your last comment.
They then must also vote in increasingly progressive candidates in primaries and local politics.
BINGO. This is the way.
because this imperfect system is very slow, and won’t change over night.
Lemmy is full of people who blew their vote on a 3rd party or didn’t vote out of apathy or anger over a single issue that simply refuse to grasp this concept. 3rd party voters actually thought they could make a random unknown candidate the president, despite being a member of a practically non-existent party with ZERO representatives in Congress. Then their most popular 3rd party candidate got a whopping half of a single percent of the total votes cast, confirming that no 3rd party is going to win anytime soon. Probably in their lifetimes. They refuse to grasp that the real way to work within this shit system is to elect the Democrats then reform the party by voting out the members that won’t get onboard with more progressive policies. Political party reforms have happened multiple times in American history and conservatives just did it in the worst way possible to the Republican party.
I love that Lemmy is almost devoid of conservatives, because I don’t need to listen to shitstains argue in bad faith in favor of fascism. But honestly, there’s so many of these people that I just described on here that refuse to work realistically within the established system that it makes me lose a lot of hope for the future. I guess they’re just banking on a revolution without realizing that not only is that probably not going to happen, but there are many examples in history of things being worse afterward because there was no plan for afterward and the void gets filled by something worse.
Long story short, you’re right. Elect the party that isn’t literally fucking fascists. Then reform it by voting out the non-progressives. That’s the only realistic way we get this nation back on track.
They are vessels that must be driven toward change under the threat of force, sure
Thats in an ideal world, but its not practical for the US in particular because their system only allows for 2 parties.
In fact, many systems boil down to that due to first past the post forcing people to vote strategically instead of for the party that best represents them.
In reality, people have to vote strategically and then use internal party politics such as primaries to shift the party to a more progressive place.
Threatening to make them lose only means the worse party comes into power and rachets everything backwards far more than leaving them in place.
Thats in an ideal world, but its not practical for the US in particular because their system only allows for 2 parties
I dont mean electoral force, I mean popular resistance.
Even ‘working within internal party politics’ involves the use of force, because capital is constantly doing the same.
“In reality”, democrats are beholden to the same forces of capitalism as the Republicans are - pushing them ‘to the left’ will always involve a threat of force greater than the threat posed by capital.
Yeah. This whole thing where voting for someone is “falling in line behind” them is very weird to me.
Politicians are not your friends. Even ones I like, I don’t really look at as that I am “allied” with them. I’m just inputting that I want them in charge more than I like the other person; it’s sort of the last stage of the process of trying to control what my government might be in a position to do to me or do to other people in the world (for good or bad, often for bad).
Do these people go driving and decide whether the transmission “deserves” to be in third gear or second gear or whatever? Do they set “red lines” about when they will and won’t touch the steering wheel? Dude, the government is often terrible. Refusing to give any input to it until it gets better on its own seems guaranteed to be self defeating.
It’s literally terrifying how many people in this country don’t grasp this concept.
You cannot get hung up on punishing a political party over a single issue while holding the door open for fascists. You cannot bank on a 3rd party candidate that CANNOT under ANY circumstance win. You have to elect the best option that most closely aligns with your ideals, then reform that party electorally. It’s been done numerous times throughout American history and conservatives just did it in the worst way possible to the Republican party.
That’s it. That is the way within the system we live in.
The only other option is flat out revolution and not only is that unlikely to happen, but history has shown us that without a clear plan for what happens after a revolution things can easily be worse as the void gets filled by other grifters and criminals.
I’m really not sure what’s going to happen in this nation going forward with so many people that simply don’t get this.
I mean, I think it is part and parcel of them thinking it’s safe for someone else to do their thinking for them. I definitely won’t say all of this “well we can’t be VOTING or anything, what the fuck is that supposed to accomplish?” mindset is maliciously engineered and injected into the discourse, but some of it is.
I would add to your prescription for what we have to do instead, vocal activism and direct action for what an actually good solution would be, supporting candidates like AOC or Mamdani, and then if the only choice that emerges at the end of that on the ballot is between “everyone dies” or “policies that are really not ideal,” we vote for that second thing and keep fighting otherwise.
One of the reason I am suspicious of all the “anti-electoralists” on Lemmy is that they spend very little energy on all that stuff, as far as I can tell. Some of them actively are complaining about AOC and Mamdani, and saying that good leftists can’t support THEM, either, because (insert various bullshit). That is a lot more of a red flag than just the sort-of-plausibly-confused idea that voting for establishment Democrats is a bad thing.
Yeah, I mean on Reddit I would assume the people even against AOC/Mamdani are conservatives/Russians/bots trying to divide and conquer. But on Lemmy it almost seems like it really is just fabulously ignorant people. I say that not only because there’s a lot less bot/conservative activity on Lemmy, but also because I see a lot of comments from clearly real people that seem to think that in reality we can just magically skip to a situation where an ultra left government can materialize out of thin air if they personally want it badly enough.
I have to assume some of these people are literally underage and we all have pretty wild concepts about what’s possible in reality, especially the complex parts, when we’re that young. But some are clearly grown ass adults. It’s alarming.
I think it is (at least) two populations.
There are clearly people who are just walking typing Dunning-Kruger effects with bad political opinions, but don’t show any kind of signs of being employed to spread disinformation and honestly seem self-consistent and high-effort about it in a way that makes it seem a little unlikely that they’re being fake about it.
But then, also, there are people who constantly spread the same little handful of talking points, don’t really seem to be putting much effort into making it believable and don’t seem self-consistent about it or even to be reading stuff that people reply to them with, sometimes make weird little errors which clearly indicate that they’re not from the US even though they care deeply about US politics, and so on and so on. That second population, I think it’s safe to say are deliberate mass-scale propaganda. It’s different on Reddit (and a lot more transparent, and they have populations of them like the pro-Israel propagandists who are not present on Lemmy), and to be honest I am also a little surprised that they have elected to spend effort on a tiny platform like Lemmy. But it seems obvious to me that they have done. And some of the nature of what they like to push makes it particularly interesting (as does the concordance that a lot of them seem not to be US-based which is very interesting to me.)
Whose blood do you think was being shed? Liberalism is the default in this culture. Those people dying were likely Liberals. There has never been a substantial enough number of leftists in the USA to be the drivers of most major policies.
Let me tell you a thing that is not often mentioned, which I think contributed to the rise of the American right we see today. In the us, unlike in Europe where freedom was economically tied to the rise of lower classes in their struggle against landowners and aristocracy, the notion of freedom implied a freedom from the norms of the majority. This is the old “frontier myth”. Then the prairie was settled, but that myth was entrenched. Then the internet came and opened up an unlimited and unregulated space for these cults and alternative views, and since the technological dynamics constantly drives everyone away from pain and towards pleasure, that is confirmation of existing beliefs, the “echo chambers” mushroomed. Because of historical baggage, the US was predisposed towards eccentricity, in a way. On top of this comes the fact that Congress has always had a very very low approval rating. It is epitomized by the representatives who read the phone book out loud, or filibuster, from the podium in order to sabotage the passing of legislation. At salaries paid by the taxpayer!! Then there is the annual shutdown ritual over the raising of the debt ceiling, which could have been avoided by switching from absolute numbers to a percentage of GDP. But it is a ritual, like the knocking on the door of the British parliament. So they keep it. But it adds an impression that they do nothing, that everything is jammed and that no representatives from different parties ever talk to each other over coffee, and that “hate” remains even after the cameras are off.
2nd time liberals illusory truth effected what Radicalists praxied.
Stop spreading misinformation @cm0002@lemmings.world.
Didn’t realize the black panthers did all this lol
Not just them. I’ll probably make a more truthful meme than this post humous false accreditation. But without Black Panther’s bloodshed, there wouldn’t be civil rights. Liberals scared off their belongings and their families next relented for 1,2,4,5,6&7. 8&9 were indigenous bloodshed, 3 was quite Reganomics. Liberals really really didn’t want women to vote. It took Stonewall deaths to get there.
Stonewall was decades after women won the vote so that part is a bit puzzling.
Overall I don’t find your retort to be any more accurate than the meme.
But the bigger issue is that successful political movements usually involve huge numbers of people, often in coalitions that include diverse ideologies and tactics. Attribution of the movement’s success to one group or person is very difficult to prove—and it seems likely to me that every part of the coalition contributes in various ways.
People on Lemmy often love to say that MLK didn’t matter and it was all due to the black panthers or Malcolm X or some other more controversial figure. But I’ve never seen any real historical evidence to support this, and I have no idea how such a thing could even be proved even if it was true.
Anyway this tribal bickering is kind of pointless. I care more about where people stand on the issues and the actions they are taking than how they label themselves. There are effective agents for change who might think of themselves as liberals. Others might label themselves leftists. But I usually find that the most effective actors recognize that they should put such labels aside and cooperate with anyone who shares their goals. Even when, at times, there may be tactical disagreements.
While I want to agree with:
successful political movements usually involve huge numbers of people, often in coalitions that include diverse ideologies and tactics.
However, American liberals are collaborating with the fascists. Not a single ICE facility has been taken down in the past 22 years this gestapo has existed.
MLK didn’t matter
We say the opposite: his tactics didn’t push the level the way Black Panther praxis did. Black panthers were going to bourgeois homes, burning them, and killing cops. You are welcome to deny how violence is the language to properly communicating with fascists the freedoms they abhor we desire to have. The last two chat leaks proved they want to enslave us again. If liberals do not want slavery back, they have to start demolishing ICE facilities as a proven “diverse coalition.”
If you want a start, there’s a liberal state waiting to be liberated.
I’m not denying anything. I’m challenging you to support your claim that black panther tactics were more effective with actual reasoning or evidence instead of mere assertions.
One could just as easily claim that their campaign was counterproductive—and people do claim this. But what reason is there to believe one claim over the other? I have no position in this debate because I’ve seen no compelling reason to adopt one. As such, I respect anyone who is genuinely working for liberation by any means that seem plausibly likely to push the needle by any amount.
And there are plenty of liberals involved in opposing ICE right now, if you want to focus on that specific issue. And there are some leftists who argue against combatting ICE for various reasons. So it’s not a simple ideological dichotomy like you and OP imply.
This is because leftism and liberalism are broad ideological categories, not homogeneous orthodoxies. There are enemies and allies that fall into both categories in my experience. And after all, we’re all individuals. While ideology and organizations do matter, they only matter insofar as they influence those individual actions.
PS: The article on MLK was interesting but it didn’t really say anything directly related to this topic of tactical effectiveness and its connection to ideological camp.
And I am challenging to praxis liberation…
There are ICE facilities to topple, let’s go!
But how? That’s the key question. No one has succeeded in this yet.
On second thought, I guess it might not be safe for you to articulate your preferred strategy publicly. But if there’s anything you can say in general terms, I’d be interested.
Personally, I think the challenge of dismantling ICE is not a physical or military challenge but a political one. How do we destroy ICE’s popularity to the extent that people stop protecting it, and toppling it becomes feasible? Because today, it simply is not.
Now are these liberals the same as what people now jerk knee think of when reading liberal
Not Lemmy’s bonkers definition of “Liberal”, no.
Define what you think it means
Can’t hear you because I’m rolling my coal you liberal wanting some clear air and water like a sissy you are. America!
Republicans did create the EPA but then they destroyed it
Nixon, at this point, would be a progressive Democrat. He was an absolutely legendary piece of human garbage, but he did care about the country and attempt to do big good things for it sometimes, in a way that most of the campaign-contribution-fueled crop of ghouls that are “congress” today do not. Reagan and Clinton really redefined the whole scope of what even being in charge of the country was supposed to mean.
I was genuinely surprised when I read that Nixon intend to “declare war on poverty” and end it by wanting to propose a bill for UBI. He was convinced by several positive studies for UBI presented to him, iirc. But it just so happens that an influential economist breaking grounds at the time, who goes by the name of Milton Friedman (the man who (in-)famously coined the phrase “greed is good”) convinced Nixon to abandon the idea. Although I don’t remember the exact arguments on how Nixon was convinced to abandon the idea of UBI.
Yeah. He actually kind of meant well. He was hampered by the fact that he was a flinty-hearted vindictive psychopath. But he did a bunch of stuff which there is literally no way to explain other than that he wanted to do something good for the [white] [Republican] [pro-war] people of the country [as long as they were nice to him at all times which is what he deserved].
He did great things. Terrible! Yes. But great.
I’d be curious to see a similar list for the Reich. Like a legitimate one though, where they actually try to list what they’re proud of. At the moment I can only think of a list containing a bunch of “cut taxes for the ultra wealthy.”
“fucked the middle east”
“revoked abortion rights”
“let millions of f****ts die of HIV”
“biggest prison population in the world - can I have a ‘hell yeah’ for modern slavery?”
If memory serves me right just about everyone in Congress supported the Iraq War both times.
Everyone except Bernie Sanders and a couple of other kooks. But yes, everyone else.
Young people don’t realize how far things have moved left in American politics in the last 20 years, with Palestinian people in congress now and socialists running for president, and even people having big protests now without instantly just getting tackled and arrested by the NYPD by the hundreds and then stuffed in a warehouse.
It’s still bad enough that I understand how people can’t grasp it and just assume “everything’s moving to the right all the time every year,” because that’s sort of what it feels like, but it’s not what’s happening.
It feels that way because conservatives have held most of the power for almost all of those 20 years.
I mean conservatives have held power since Carter. He was the last non-conservative president we had, he actually tried to reign in the CIA and get Israel to stop killing Arabs in a big way, among other things. Biden was actually way further left than the norm, if that tells you anything.
We took a massive tumble with Reagan/Clinton, and then ever since then, we’ve been crawling our way back up towards some kind of humanity in government an inch at a time.
Biden literally split with the democratic party to stop desegregation. He was always one of the most conservative dems.
Yeah, he co-sponsored the bill alongside Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. He was giving speeches for segregation while Bernie was getting arrested at civil rights protests. That was pretty much my exact point: The Democrats were the segregation party up until an instant before Biden got his start, and then he went from that and the crime bill, to thirty years later doing all this semi-progressive stuff as president. He is certainly not left in any real sense, but he was raising corporate tax and working on climate change instead of getting up talking about “super predators” and wanting to bomb Nicaragua with congress’s full support and things like that.
It used to be “beat the Nazis,” “got the railroads built,” and things like that. There is value to having some conservative values in government. The problems with America actually don’t have a lot to do with partisan politics; it is that the right wing turned into Nazis, and the “left” wing of the establishment politicians turned into Roman senators too busy getting blowjobs to realize that people are starving in the streets and can’t afford their insulin.
I would actually be fine with Republicans of the John McCain / Dwight Eisenhower mold in government. If we could get rid of Mike Johnson and Nancy Pelosi (ideally by just dumping them into the Potomac), and have it be AOC and Adam Kinsinger, I’d be fine with that. The MAGA people are more overtly evil, but it’s not even really a party thing.
I remember seeing McCain on TDS before the 2000 election. He was fucking sharp then. Somewhere between then and 2008, he went off the rails and/or made a deal with the devil.
Yeah, 100%. I feel like maybe he lost his mind because of trying to become the president. Hunter Thompson talked about it, he said he saw it happen to a few different people, he compared it to a moose during mating season, just losing his mind to go after the goal.
Maybe being embedded into a party that became so depraved took some kind of toll on him… having to deal with Sarah Palin. My God, I can’t even imagine. But yeah, whatever it was I 100% agree, something happened to him.
McCain became a shell of himself when they saddled him with Alaska Annie (or whatever that Tina Fey character’s name was). He could have been a uniting figure, but instead the right decided to eat their own.
Their list is always the same, although much of it applies to very few people, and none of it enhances the actual lives of everyday people:
Cut taxes (not yours)
Saved unborn babies (at great risk to mothers)
Restored morality to government (pure horseshit, but they proclaim it loudly while destroying immigrant children’s lives, protecting pedophiles and posting videos of the president dumping feces on those who protest any of this).
Restored financial stability (not once in the past 75 years)
Cut inflation (Again, never happened.)
In short: They have no accomplishments, so they demean those of others and lie about their lack thereof.
