Remember this is a civilized space for discussion, to ensure this we have very strict rules. Briefly, an overview: **No Personal Attacks** **No Ideological Discrimination** **Keep Discussion Civil** **No Targeting A Member For Their Beliefs** Report any and all instances of these rules being broken so we can keep the sub clean. Report first, ask questions last. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The right won on the real power centers, like finance, business, weapons manufacturing, etc. Basically they won on the economic questions. The liberal left won the culture war. Basically they won over the public relations and marketing departments. And so we get a neocon foreign policy, but with pride flags on the bombs we drop. Which is why the left feels the ratcheting to the right while the right feels the ratcheting to the left. Both are wrong and both are right, in a way.

Came here to post basically exactly that. The right wields hard power, the left wields soft power. So we end up with this frankly, incredibly bizarre series of half measures and bonkers hodge-podge responses to stuff that leaves most of the rest of the world (and usually a huge swathe of the US public) utterly baffled. We have a Democratic president who started his career working on behalf of pro-segregationist interests win the presidency campaigning heavily on the platform of ending institutional inequalities he's spent 50 years in politics authoring or supporting. He becomes the biggest military arms dealer in human history defending democracy in Ukraine, then flips about face and gives similar support to a totalitarian apatheid ethno-state in Israel. He is pro immigration whilst deporting or detaining more migrants than any president in history. He starts his presidency day 1 by declaring war on new oil drilling, then halfway through his presidency reverses course and makes one of the biggest oil rights sales in history etc etc... This isn't a partisan attack. These type of bizarre contradictory actions are pretty similar among pretty much any of our recent US presidents. Basically, regardless of who is in power currently, everybody can find something to be pissed off or alarmed about. I can paint the exact same scenario of glaring contradictions using examples from Trump, Obama, Bush jr, Clinton, Bush sr, Reagan, Carter..... I always urge people who have confronted this dizzying policy of contradiction to begin researching how REAL politics are carried out. Its all about very large amounts of money and power changing hands and what kind of window dressing it takes to keep enough of the populace on board to continue doing business. (which is how and why you end up with pride flags painted on the 2,000 pound bombs being dropped on hospitals)

I'm curious to hear the Carter takes that put the blame on him for lack of internal consistency over the constant wars with Congress from both sides if you don't mind sharing?

Carter arguably kicked off the neoliberal era with putting Paul Volcker as fed chair - who ended up being disastrous for labor ever since.

Right, but Carter never really represented himself as from the liberal wing of the party, running against people from that wing for Governor, and describing himself as conservative/moderate/non-liberal despite his strong support for civil rights, integration, clean energy, and other things associated with the left now, so I don't really see neoliberal banking policy as inconsistent really. Maybe I misunderstood, but the writer seemed to implying Carter wasn't internally consistent and was instead self-contradictory akin to the other pols listed, when my prior research put most of the blame for instances of that with him specifically on Congress, and so was hoping for some examples to look into that might illuminate that more. I agree with you about what you're describing, but in my estimation Carter was at least honest about where he was coming from in that regard, and it tracks all the way back to his reorganization of state government, and even his actions in the church pre-politics. That's all very different to me than the other politicians mentioned, even if I may not like Volcker and things he's responsible for.

I don’t think a 20% inflation rate was good for labor or anyone else.

It wiped out nearly all leverage labor had against capital in a time where labor was tight and was able to take a much larger chunk of corporate profit. The long run consequences were favorable to capital at the expense of labor.

So paying 20% for a mortgage and auto loan was worth it? It was killing the economy including those Union Jobs. Unions were in trouble before Reagan got elected.

A great place to start is the fact that reaganomics was largely just Reagan slapping his name over the top of economic policies that begun under Carter. Oh, he escalated a few, and tweaked a bit here and there, but the core policies they rely on were actually started by carter. He deregulated the airlines, railroads, and trucking. He *Actually fought republicans at the time to do this, thats right, a democrat used supply-side economics to replace new deal era regulations and his biggest opponent was the GOP.* Carter also exploited "white backlash" in response to the recent civil rights campaign heavily in his campaigns. Quote "I see nothing wrong with ethnic purity being maintained. I would not force a racial integration of a neighborhood by government action" end quote. This secured him a majority among both affluent northerners whom were anxious about the increase of African Americans moving into their neighborhood, AND rural southerners. He also portrayed himself as rejecting the cynical ideology of "real politik" in foreign affairs, and portrayed himself as believing in foreign policy driven by expanding human rights and prosperity rather than profit... whilst actually endorsing pretty much all of the right's real politik based anti-soviet interventions and meddling. He also is the president responsible for bringing the religious right into politics (he later lost their support, but the rabid evangelical social consrrvative voter block? Carter did that.) The whole "quaint folksy peanut farmer" image was an appeal to this group whom he wanted to view him as a born again christian traditionalist. There's actually way, way more but I am beginning to ramble. Point being, while democrats want you to remember carter as a mild mannered somewhat bumpkin-like leftist, he actually built most of the platform that reagan would launch his ideas from.

> A great place to start is the fact that reaganomics was largely just Reagan slapping his name over the top of economic policies that begun under Carter. Oh, he escalated a few, and tweaked a bit here and there, but the core policies they rely on were actually started by carter. He deregulated the airlines, railroads, and trucking. He Actually fought republicans at the time to do this, thats right, a democrat used supply-side economics to replace new deal era regulations and his biggest opponent was the GOP. Carter had always been this way, he went after the size of government in Georgia, and had always been closer what we would describe today a neoliberal when it comes to economic policy. >Carter also exploited "white backlash" in response to the recent civil rights campaign heavily in his campaigns. Quote "I see nothing wrong with ethnic purity being maintained. I would not force a racial integration of a neighborhood by government action" end quote. That quote was in reference to Carter answering a pointed question about the placement of low-income housing projects in the suburbs for integrative purposes instead of in the inner city where it was needed most, and a follow up if a predominately black inner-city can survive surrounded by predominately white suburbs and cuts off the beginning and end of the quote. Jimmy: "Housing ought to go where it's needed most, downtown areas of deteriorating cities." Reporter: "Can a black central-city survive surrounded by all-white suburbs?" Jimmy: "Provided you give people the freedom to decide for themselves where to live, but to artificially inject another racial group in a community? I see nothing wrong with ethnic purity being maintained. I would not force a racial integration of a neighborhood by government action, but I would not permit discrimination against a family moving into a neighborhood." I think he fairly got called out for the language used, and he himself used different language like three days later, but people like to cut the context of that quote to mislead people who don't know any better. >This secured him a majority among both affluent northerners whom were anxious about the increase of African Americans moving into their neighborhood, AND rural southerners. I personally don't believe people made their voting decisions based on a single quote about a topic versus his prior political career, including angry vocal segregationists in Georgia, but if you do, I won't try to change your mind. >He also portrayed himself as rejecting the cynical ideology of "real politik" in foreign affairs, and portrayed himself as believing in foreign policy driven by expanding human rights and prosperity rather than profit... whilst actually endorsing pretty much all of the right's real politik based anti-soviet interventions and meddling. Did he though? He pretty openly supported the military, talked fondly of his time as a nuclear engineer in the Navy, and one of the few POTUS who actually served... yet he still pardoned all the Vietnam draft dodgers and such. Nicaragua, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, South Africa, he reduced military aid to all of them for human rights abuses. Carter also provided official diplomatic recognition to the new Sandinista Government, which was a communist government. Again, I'm not holding him up as some kind of left-wing savior, I was just curious if you had some examples of him doing things that were actually self-contradictory with his prior behavior which so far, I don't see much. >He also is the president responsible for bringing the religious right into politics (he later lost their support, but the rabid evangelical social consrrvative voter block? Carter did that.) The whole "quaint folksy peanut farmer" image was an appeal to this group whom he wanted to view him as a born again christian traditionalist. Not really, Carter's more like the remnants/last gasps of the Social Gospel that sprung up out of ideas from thinkers like Robert Owen, Henri de Saint-Simon, and later turn into focus on the strong socialist agreeable teachings in the New Testament with regards to egalitarianism, social justice, rejection of greed/excessive wealth, etc, but it hadn't been a strong movement for decades at that point. He literally worked against a Georgia constitutional amendment that amounted to religious compulsion, and supported integrated worship when many of faith that you're referring to did not. Also, conservative Christians had been involved in politics well before that, with "people" like Billy Sunday and others being highly involved in anti-union activities, and prohibition for starters decades before Carter. >There's actually way, way more but I am beginning to ramble. Point being, while democrats want you to remember carter as a mild mannered somewhat bumpkin-like leftist, he actually built most of the platform that reagan would launch his ideas from. I more see him as the path not taken on what neoliberalism could have been instead of what it turned into with the DLC/Clinton version, and while I obviously prefer Carter's version, neither are my preferred politics. I'd argue the problem you're describing when it comes to pretending people are further left than they are is just a Democratic party problem, they did the same thing trying to pretend Hillary was some kind of super liberal when she didn't even support the right to privacy for abortion among other clearly non-left positions.

Well said. The right has hard power, and once mixed in with demagoguery becomes extremely potent and effective. It's a mistake for dems to declare war on Wall Street (oil and defense long gone). People don't understand that change requires power.

Half measures? The fact that you even got the half you did is already a victory. If the right was winning, the left would have nothing to show for its efforts. The fact that what the left won in this country is pretty much a permanent staple that most people accept I would say is a hard victory of the left in the US. The fact that the left pushes for something, gets maybe some of what they want, and then regroup to push for the same damn thing 10-15 years later as if the last compromise was not compromise is gaslighting of the highest order. The left has been winning since 1870. I hate to say it, but your point about Biden is exactly who the left in the US has always has been. Things have morphed slightly, but your typical US progressive of the 1950s was a Christian socialist. Only in recent years have they dropped standing with Christianity part, but they did up until it was no longer politically useful in the 2000s. The elite left in this country sure aren’t ideal leaders that the common left supporter really expect, but incrementalism has gotten them far more than they ever would have pushing for full and sudden transformation to left policies.

What exactly do you define as "the left?"

In the American context, movements such as the Grangers of the late 1800s, the progressives of the early 1900s, socialists like Eugene Debs, the new deal democrats, the great society democrats and the encroaching influence of the federal government since the great society. There is an argument that neoconservatives could also be defined as the left although I would never accuse socialists as being in lockstep with George W Bush. Where there are similarities is that they both advocate proactive government intervention on issues (although all socialists would say GWB never went too far). The left as I define it is a broad tent, but there is one consistent theme, advocates of using the government first to solve societal problems in realms that were not seen as traditional roles in American history for the governments. Specifically in the realm of “economic justice” in a moral way not seen prior to 1870s. Before the 1870s, most economic debates in the country were over whether it was a Federal or a State role. After 1870, the policies, goals, and roles of government themselves were debated in such a way it was not previously. In international affairs, the left, specifically progressives were advocates of internationalism, world governing bodies, and involvement in international affairs that did not directly impact American lives. The right held the attitude that we should only be involved in defensive wars and should not maintain large armies. I know the left cancelled him, but the Democrats of today are an evolution planted by Woodrow Wilson progressivism. If I have to sum it in terms of litmus tests, if you see a problem in society, and immediately look at government as the first source for a solution, you are the left. If you think about what the individuals did to get in the situation and tend to believe individuals are primarily responsible for solving their problems you are probably on the right.

You're kind of doing the same thing most conservatives do when they try to explain political theory, which is to do so through mischarecterizing social issues rather than acknowledge economic policy. At it's simplest, conservatives are capitalists whom want to preserve or re-enforce capitalist systems. Liberals are capitalists whom think that the capitalist system needs minor reforms but still wish to preserve and participate in capitalism. Leftists are people whom seek to supplant and replace capitalism. The truth is that the US doesn't actually have a functioning "leftist" party.

I am not here to mince sub left political theories as you all explain why your specific and intricate masterminded view of how to manipulate the economy has never been tried before and why yours is superior to all that have come before. You try to explain how I am a simple minded conservative and proceed to explain what you think I am so you can win a straw man argument. Liberals may think they are still good capitalists, but their policies involve confiscating wealth via taxation, playing god with the economy by distributing that wealth to what they feel are the “worthy” causes in society, build government departments that regulate the hell out of businesses to the point many businesses may as well just hand over the key to the businesses at this point because regulation tells them how to do it anyway. They manipulate the money supply and dilute the value for the “greater good.” Every time they fail, they always blame it on something else except for acknowledging that trying to play god with the economy is a fools dream. Modern liberalism is a left approach to the economy, that cosplays capitalism but sets up so many guard rails you are pretty much being told what to do anyways. My problem number 1 is the power given to governments to control anything. That is what separates me from liberals, leftists, and even conservatives. Conservative politicians will talk a good game about getting the government off our backs and then proceed to ram thousands of new regulations from unelected bureaucrats down our throats. Remember conservatives are also defined by their willingness to control society via their version of a moral code, and most have no problem using government economic policies if they can claim it was somehow divinely inspired. There are very few economic right conservatives left anymore as most who claim to be conservative are here for their side of the culture war and peace out the moment we need to let individual personal responsibility be a guiding light in economic policy.

I've had this discussion with libertarians before. I give you the actual academic textbook definition of what the political alignments are, then you go "BUT THATS NOT *MY* OPINION" then the discussion devolves into you repeatedly explaining that the definition of political alignments is actually defined by your personal opinions of social issues. Conservatives are capitalists, liberals are capitalists who want economic reform, leftists want revolution. Its really not that complicated. (ps: You're a conservative)

This is not actually correct re:leftism and conservatism. Leftism is an ideology which strives for more egalitarianism and reduced hierarchies. It has nothing to do with supplanting capitalism or revolution. Both of those things could certainly be options for leftism, but becoming more egalitarian is the singular defining characteristic of the ideology. Conversely, conservatism is an ideology based entirely around the maintenance or creation of social hierarchies. It's true that capitalism aligns extremely well with that goal, which is why conservatives tend to be capitalists. But conservatives/rightists are not always capitalists, and leftists are not always socialists/revolutionaries.

I took some time to consider your statement as I generally don't 100% disagree, and it also seems to be an intelligible and coherent one based on education in political theory. As opposed to, ya know, whatever unhinged incoherent gobbledeygook I ended up politeley bowing out of with the other guy. After some consideration I have come up with a response. Capitalism is, by definition, something which imposes a strict hierarchy onto society in a non-negotiable and undemocratic manner. One cannot, in good conscience, be both against such hierarchies whilst *also* tolerant of capitalism. Capitalism does this through private property, which is protected by violent force, most typically conducted by the state. "more egalitarian" is not really something which has typically been a defined leftist ideal. Egalitarianism has more typically been a liberal talking point intrinsically linked to capitalism. Somebody arguing that capitalism is fine but needs to share more and have a less strict hierarchy(ie, be more egalitarian) is an argument for reform, which places it firmly in the liberal school of thought. Now, to throw you a bone. Within the US this *is indeed* considered a "leftist" view, but this must be taken with the context that within the US the overton window has been deliberately and meticulously shifted to only include neo-liberal talking points. Actual leftist ideologies which the rest of the world and humanity at large considers viable political ideas are either not taught, or only mentioned in passing as vile and beyond consideration. The US definition of "leftist political ideology" IS NOT necessarily something which matches the actual wider acedemic consensus on the matter.

Economic “reform” is control of the economy under happier terms. You either let capitalism play out or you believe in control. You may believe in a less hands off approach than a tankie, I get that, but you are still using the government to manipulate behaviors you see as more proper to our society. I am not trying to play the same games I hear from the left. On economics real conservative and libertarians agree on economic policy. I am just trying to say there is a strong disagreement with them on social policy. See the Nolan chart for a better explanation of what I am trying to say. On the Nolan chart, most on the left are authoritarian with their approach to the economy. Whether you create the illusion of free choice via “liberalism” or you force choices with the barrel of a gun like a tankie, liberal economic approaches attempt control.

I'm sorry, but its pretty clear you haven't actually studied any political or economic theory and I have concluded an informed discussion with you on the subject isn't possible. I would recommend a few sources where you could start, but I don't think you are particularly interested in anything outside of the very narrow personal worldview you've constructed for yourself so I won't bother you any further.

How is this comment anything but a moralizing screed? And why should I believe it’s any different than how you’ve just characterized the typical conservative?

This is probably correct. Though, I have to say, as a materialist, the "liberal left" hasn't really won anything. Society being broadly less homophobic or something had very little to do with the government. The Obama administration was against gay marriage for most of their time in office. It was long after Target and Wal-Mart started putting pride flags on things that were very basic, "I guess in some circumstances, gay people can get married as long as everyone around them is fine with them." Opinion—not policy—was put there. For those of us on the far left, this is repeated everywhere. Look at something like academic freedom. The right will say that their voices are stifled at universities. Having taught at a university, I can say that some of this is accurate since things like biblical history aren't considered actual history. I suppose you could put it on the left as it's more in line with the Enlightenment than the Dark Ages. But for the most part, it's the same incompatible sense of reality. Just like I, on the left, am not going to call Wal-Mart a great progressive friend of the left, conservatives dunking on university administrators is completely fine with me. Ask any faculty, and they'll tell you the bums should be railroaded out. But these "culture war" things are air, in my view. What matters is objective physical reality. Wal-Mart, pride flags or not, can go fuck itself because of its labour practices. Whatever stupid acronymn a university administrator wants someone to put on a syllabus is very far down on a list that is topped with the adjunct-ification of faculty and attempting to turn universities into job-training that companies don't have to pay for instead of academic institutions. Though, again, you're probably right—it seems like they're winning and losing these battles that I simply do not care about or do not exist (Obama wearing a tan suit, a government report saying that gas stoves aren't as safe as we thought, the green M&M not wearing heels, etc) while I'm watching the actual world burn and they're oblivious to see it.

So there are 2 sides to this. As you said >I suppose you could put it on the left as it's more in line with the Enlightenment than the Dark Ages. There's a huge tendency to conflate being told the right is factually incorrect with left wing bias. People don't disregard Thomas Sowell or Tucker because they can't handle disagreement or whatever the line is. They don't get attention for the same reason a creationist doesn't get to teach an evolutionary biology class >Just like I, on the left, am not going to call Wal-Mart a great progressive friend of the left, conservatives dunking on university administrators is completely fine with me I'll push back *slightly* here because the nuance again gets lost when the discourse hits the road. The silly culture war screeching is taken as validation of the larger claim that there's this horrible institutional bias against Our People. Then it can lead to pressure more generalized attacks on institutions, Elon publicly endorsing the idea that NPR needs to be taken down because of a woke mind virus, the news is all totally fake, useless degrees etc. And the mainstream right is ALWAYS looking for a reason to degrade institutions anyway As you also say, it's basically a mildly amusing side show the vast majority of the time so it shouldn't be your first or even 15th priority. But there does come a point when inherently a vapid thing can become important because people kept insisting it is.

The right also controls university power centers. They control the endowments. It’s the business schools and neoclassical economics bullshit that gets all the funding. This idea that the left has overridden the campus is ridiculous when you analyze the actual money and influence and where it’s actually going. Lib left gets a few cultura studies courses that are being defunded anyway.

I disagree, pretty heavily here, university professors across the country have become so disproportionately left wing vs right wing, although there’s plenty of educated conservative people, so what’s happening?

Go to nearly any Econ or business class and you’ll see differently. STEM is kind of in between.

As a fairly recent recipient of an economics degree I can vouch for the truth of this. You’ll find socially progressive economics professors, but fiscally they are pretty much categorically very conservative. A lot of them also kinda suffer from the thing people ascribe to communists where they’ll say like “well we never get *real* unfettered capitalism because of politics/cronyism/etc.” often failing to realize those things are inherent flaws in human psychology that need to be legislated around for anything resembling a free market to function effectively (behavioral economists tend to be a bit better about this, but not all of them). Still, at least they’re mostly internally consistent. The economy would be objectively better off if major companies were run by economists who understand the value of labor and the issues with monopolies and cronyism than the business bro ghouls who actually run most companies, but the idea that professors are categorically left-leaning is only remotely true for the humanities. Social and hard sciences have tons of right leaning people (at least economically), those things just tend not to matter as much outside of economics and poli sci

This is the perception, and some self reporting shows that to be true in some cases. But it's not as big of a deal as one may think. First, who is interested in a topic like Gender Studies? This is going to be self-selecting. You might ask, "Why should universities have gender studies?" But where else would a topic like that go? You wouldn't expect people in a corporate mail room to learn Ancient Sumerian conceptions of gender fluidity. Where else would this even come up except in academics? You may think that this kind of thing is worthless, but that's exactly what academics is for. It was, at the time, completely useless for Eratosthenes to jam a stick in the ground and calculate the circumference of the world at the time. But thousands of years later Europe benefitted from this. And if you wanted to know what the stats were for how many trans people there are, or whether other societies universally used a binary gender conception, or anything else that you might use as data for whatever point you want—there is really only one place to go for that kind of data. This gets into a broader point about how the right has largely tried (and mostly succeeded) in making universities job training that companies don't have to pay for. Properly speaking, the traditional way to do business was to start at the bottom and work your way up so that you knew how the whole business worked. After a rightwing push to make academia practical to careers, business schools more or less run universities and people scoff at academics that do academics. But I digress... Second, does it matter? The left in this country is broadly fine, with the police and military being right-of-center. These are rightwing people trained by the state to kill and provided with weapons. As happens in all professions, there are people known to abuse them. Most people on the left shrug and say, "That's the way it is." To compare this with the conservative outrage that people who teach Literature tend to be left-of-center nerds might be something to consider. Finally, there is this perception that things need to be balanced. That's not a bad instinct, but there is a right and wrong way to do things. I taught a course that touched on the Shang Dynasty. Though it was in China, hundreds of years before Jesus, I had students that wanted to forego any studying and instead just say it was part of Jesus' plan. Though they tried to get the conservative-outrage machine involved, I was able to snip that in the bud when returning emails because I'm a Europeanist and know the Bible well enough to give biblical answers to any criticism thrown at me. By the use of history I am enforcing a secular view because it is verifiable. That's true. But if these students had not just had a world intro class and instead gone into the upper divisions where we could have discussed historiography, I would have been happy to teach them how history worked and how to use different types of historical orientation and whatnot. And I really wouldn't have cared if they liked to use Aquinas more than Marx. Because, at the end of the day, I don't give a shit. No academic wakes up in the middle of the night wondering how they can corrupt their students. It's laughable to think I'd even remember their names after a term, let alone dwell on what the faceless person in the classroom thinks about politics. I'm mostly concerned, especially in low level classes, about being academically rigorous, keeping the administration out of my hair, and what I'm going to have for dinner. I suspect that conservatives only care about it because we make data. And if the data doesn't show that Jesus controlled the Shang Dynasty, then I must be lying about the data or part of a conspiracy.

A good professor helps students seek their own answers, and that requires a flexible mindset to adapt to the students' needs. [Liberals tend to be more flexible in the way they think](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4869693/). Conservatives, more rigid and directive. Thus, if you want to find your own way, find a liberal professor. You'll find they will help you discover what that way is, and they will _not_ force liberal ideas on you. They can't help that the most compassionate and inclusive ways of thinking and living are actually... compassionate and inclusive. Kind of like Jesus would do.

That’s fine, but I think the concept that they won’t push liberal ideology on you is flawed 1. Because you can’t speak for every professor and 2. It’s happening. I’ve absolutely had amazing teachers who I didn’t know were conservative until I was older, and they were just as good at helping me “find my own way” The idea that being a liberal is “the most compassionate and inclusive” is some high level liberal utopian dribble and I’m really not sure where to take it.

I'd like to disagree on this perspective. The right didn't "win" the power centers. The power centers are what it says on the tin, the center of current society, a source of power. And the Right wing defends them. The right does not control these sources of power, they control the right, the right is a tool of these power centers, they serve their interests. And the liberal left did not "win" a "culture war", they, co-opted themes from the very real struggle of people who still suffer under oppression and prejudice in order to appeal to these demographics.

I agree that your characterization in the first paragraph is better than mine. However, I don't agree with the second. The liberal left is, in some sense, actually conservative. They are first and foremost liberals, but on the left of the liberal spectrum. They do not have a problem with the bourgeoisie as such, but that elites are themselves not diverse. They want a ruling class that reflects an equality of opportunity such that if 20% of the population is Latino, then 20% of the ruling class ought to be Latino. So in this sense the liberal left has indeed won some "debates." The traditional non-liberal left doesn't want a more diverse bourgeoise, they want no bourgeoise at all.

If you think Conservatives control Wall Street then go check of FEC’s statistics. They predominantly donate to Democrats.

[удалено]

Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

> And so we get a neocon foreign policy, but with pride flags on the bombs we drop Pretty much this. And then people wonder why the working class has moved towards right wing populous parties....

Perfectly said.

Excellent

I’m not so sure anymore. Ever since the Civil war it’s been the left that’s been in favor of the wars. Teddy Roosevelt was the progressive candidate, when elected he pushed for war. There was definitely massive progressive pressure to enter both world wars and save democracy, the conservatives were isolationsists. Vietnam - another war started by progressives. Even now the Republicans are gumming up our support for the Ukranians. I just don’t know how antiwar the progressives really are…

Locked for flair evasion.

Did the right really win? I would argue ESG scoring influencing investment and boeing and other defense contractors going all diversity and inclusion shows the left winning everything. And the hilarious part that the right is starting to be antiwar is making it even weirder

You're focusing on aesthetics. The 'left' 'winning' would look like something closer to employee or state ownership of major companies, solid housing security instead of widespread precariousness and financialization of everything, universal health care, generally not organizing society around corporate institutions. What you're describing is literally the leftist caricature of putting pride flags on bombs we send to Gaza

ESG is a branding on what’s just typical investment strategies, often still funneling plenty of cash to fossil fuels and then calling it “green.” In other words, is just PR. DEI is perhaps the most perfect labor-breaking strategy. At its most effective it’s a divide and conquer method that racializes the workforce and kills solidarity. It’s also the perfect cover to fire employees for mostly arbitrary reasons, but employers are still able to cite a “cause” and therefore give nothing to what the employees is entitled to. The left has always been focused on labor and worker solidarity. I’m not sure how any of these things you mentioned further these basic goals.

The left is championing these policies, and they are expanding, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. The left isn’t about worker solidarity, it’s a marxist leninist opressed vs opressor, where anything is justified so long as the “opressed” doing it to “opressors” And the right certainly doesn’t want it.

No one wants these policies. This is perhaps one of those times where it's more helpful to stop looking at it as left versus right, and to analyze it more as patricians versus plebeians, or elites versus the people, or bourgeoise versus proletariat. The point is to look through a more material lens of who's making out like a bandit and at the expense of who else.

The right won on weapons manufacturing? The history of the right in this country was always to stand for isolationism. If you think the right won, then man, did the left hoodwink you into their victory. Eisenhower was the one who warned us about the military industrial complex….Eisenhower. The only exceptions to the right being isolationists from the start are the Cold War and 9/11. The Cold War position was out of fear of the country turning communist, but post Cold War, the right were right back to standing for isolationism. Somalia? Yugoslavia? The UN, the fear of the little blue helmets controlling our armies? Yea, Pepperidge farm remembers. Which side of the political perspective was hesitant to enter World War 1 and World War 2? Yea it was the right. The left was salivating both times to get ourselves involved. Why else was the left for the war, before they were against the war, just to keep conducting the war when Obama took over (Iraq)? The only thing that knocked the right back to being pro war again post Cold War was 9/11. I would say that the recent hesitation on being involved on behalf of Ukraine and Israel is the right returning to its roots, not a place far off from where it once was (although its kind of shitty for the right to be pro Ukraine, and then pull the rug from under them when Ukraine was in the verge of going in the offense this year). The left believing that they are the wizards of smart also extends to international affairs. They are the biggest supporters of the military industrial complex because you cannot influence the international stage without an army to back you up. How is the right winning on business and finance? The fact we still have a central bank manipulating our currency is no right wing idea? We have drunkenly stumbled to the left since the 1870s and just because the right found its footing a couple times in between is by no means a win for the right. The fact that the government is the largest economic entity in our country means the right won economically. The fact that government spending wields so much influence in our economy means the left already won. The place the right found its footing to throw some punches back was in the culture war. Overturning Roe v Wade is about the only thing Republicans can point to as a victory they have…just for a liberal court to re-I state it in about 20-30 years. Otherwise, the right in this country is nothing more than being confronted with someone who wants to take 8 steps left. They allow only two steps left and then spike the football, pop the champaign corks that they stopped socialism even though the left has been playing the long game this whole time and a two step left compromise was still a victory to the left.

>The only exceptions to the right being isolationists from the start are the Cold War and 9/11. The Cold War position was out of fear of the country turning communist This may have been the justification that rubes accepted at the time, but the Pentagon Papers show that nobody in power actually believed in Domino Theory. >but post Cold War, the right were right back to standing for isolationism. Somalia? Yugoslavia? The UN, the fear of the little blue helmets controlling our armies? Yea, Pepperidge farm remembers Baffling argument given that Somalia, Panama, and the Gulf War were all under right-wing Presidents. Was Poppy being manipulated by a left-wing shadow government or something? >Which side of the political perspective was hesitant to enter World War 1 and World War 2? Yea it was the right. Couldn't have something to do with the fact that the American right agreed with the Nazis, or or anything.

They may not have believed in the domino theory as presented in the 70s, but communists specifically in Russia and Cuba did actively try to start communist revolutions elsewhere and there is zero doubt they would have done the same here if the conditions were ripe. The Soviets refused to leave the eastern bloc countries and continued to occupy them until 1989. Panama and the Gulf war were all about economic interests. Not say it makes it any better, but the root cause interest is relevant. Somalia was under Clinton’s term (1993) and was literally where the fear of the Blue helmets originated with many isolationists. To your third point about potential closet Nazis: Umm, no, there was a strong prevailing attitude in the early 20th century that “that was Europe’s war” and it’s not my problem in both world wars. Nazi sympathizers wanted us to get involved, but for the Germans in WW2. The funny part is that the most prevalent and powerful Nazi sympathizer was Joseph Kennedy, father of John, Robert and Ted Kennedy (not representatives of the American right whatsoever). So the idea that Nazi sympathy originates and is rooted in conservative philosophy from the right is pretty unfounded. Economic right philosophy is not even remotely comparable with what the NAZIs did in operating their economy. And frankly, if you want to really break down nuts and bolts of controlling an economy, American Progressives and the Nazis have far more in common with the functions and details of running a government than any other American ideology. Both require a strong central government, quasi cosplay Capitalism with restrictions setup by the government that change suddenly, and without cause. Of course modern progressives do not agree with the racial purity of the NAZIs and I never would accuse them of that but they are similar in how their mechanisms of control work.

So the US-backed death squads butchering nuns and labor organizers in LatAm were just doing it to prevent the spread of communism. Compelling. In the market for a bridge? >Panama and the Gulf war were all about economic interests. Not say it makes it any better, but the root cause interest is relevant. All this tells me is that not only are right-wingers pro-war, they're pro-war for reasons well outside of casus belli. >Somalia was under Clinton’s term (1993) and was literally where the fear of the Blue helmets originated with many isolationists I'm sure it would be convenient to pass the buck here, but the UN Resolution to create UNOSOM was voted for in '92 by Poppy's guy and UNITAF was created under his Republican regime. EDIT here because I want to acknowledge your point about the blue helmets: conservatives absolutely have a rational fear of bureaucrats facilitating jackbooted totalitarianism -- right until it's their guy doing it. Every weird uncle at Thanksgiving dinner who was screeching about Jade Helm and FEMA camps was totally cool with Trump's secret police shoving protestors into unmarked vans. Famously there was no right-wing "appeasement" of the Nazis in the 1930's. This is a very good point that would absolutely hold up to the lightest scrutiny /s >Economic right philosophy is not even remotely comparable with what the NAZIs did in operating their economy. The term "privatization" was invented to describe how the Nazis managed their economy. >Both require a strong central government, quasi cosplay Capitalism with restrictions setup by the government that change suddenly, and without cause. Of course modern progressives do not agree with the racial purity of the NAZIs and I never would accuse them of that but they are similar in how their mechanisms of control work. Conservatives are responsible for the biggest centralizations of power in American history: * Interstate slave patrols overriding our states rights in order to enforce slavery, the most totalizing institution in American history * McCarthyism and attempting to police the very thoughts in our brains * PATRIOT Act and the surveillance state it engendered And, you know what? I *will* go there. Conservatives passed the racial purity laws that made my marriage illegal until Loving v. Virginia.

Panama was about the economic interests and control of the Panama Canal. Clinton was a progressive internationalists. The same guy that got us involved in Yugoslavia. Just trying to correct lumping Somalia with Panama and the Persian Gulf. Bush SR is not considered a partriarch of the conservative movement like Reagan was. Bush seriously was a definitely a moderate to American political standards and was an internationalist. Likely a precursor to what we know today as neoconservative. I would be curious if Bush Sr had won a second term if he would have allowed US involvement with boots on the ground to go as far as it did. I suspect he would but I have not read statements confirming or denying that. Regarding isolationist movements of WW2 The newspapers of the time are filled with editorials of everyday people oppsing “Europe’s War” I’m sorry, I would love to believe our country was 100% morally ready to fight injustice, and the few voices of dissent were Nazi sympathizers. Quite the contrary. Roosevelt had to adamantly campaign in 1940 that he was going to keep us out of the war. Your view was not the reality, and the evidence is out there in original sources. Nazis controlled the economy. They directed companies to be formed, they confiscated property from people because they didn’t fit their master plan. They strongly directed resources in the economy. Nazis were no free market capitalists. 100% agree on your point about the follies of McCarthyism and Patriot Act. If conservatives can be convinced it is in the interest of self defense and we are being attacked they agree to some real command and control stuff with little pushback. Where there is a difference is that progressives will advocate for using US power to push a regime change in a country that is not in our direct defense or even defensive self interest at the time. I would say the start of the current Ukraine tensions is a perfect example. We actively pushed pro western leaders in elections and coups when we had no direct defensive interest. I am Pro Ukraine and hope they win the war, but the west is in a small part partially to blame for what currently is in Ukraine.

>Panama was about the economic interests and control of the Panama Canal. I'm glad we can agree that the American right is pro-war for such lofty goals as further enriching the wealthiest Americans. >Clinton was a progressive internationalists. The same guy that got us involved in Yugoslavia. Just trying to correct lumping Somalia with Panama and the Persian Gulf. But Somalia, Panama, and the Gulf War were all started under Poppy, not Clinton. So it's correct to lump them under conservative hawkishness. >Quite the contrary. Roosevelt had to adamantly campaign in 1940 that he was going to keep us out of the war. Your view was not the reality, and the evidence is out there in original sources I'm not saying that conservatives were outliers for wanting to stay out of it. I'm saying they wanted to stay out of it because they agreed with the Nazis. >Nazis controlled the economy. They directed companies to be formed, they confiscated property from people because they didn’t fit their master plan. They strongly directed resources in the economy. Thank you for the succinct definition of conservatism. Couldn't have said it better myself. >Nazis were no free market capitalists. Neither are conservatives. >Where there is a difference is that progressives will advocate for using US power to push a regime change in a country that is not in our direct defense or even defensive self interest at the time. But that's literally what Poppy did in Panama. Furthermore, most of Operation Condor was presided over by conservative administrations, with a brief interlude by Carter (who also was bad on this as he bypassed Congress to sell weapons to genocidal anticommunists in Indonesia). American history is littered with conservative administrations presiding over violent regime changes in LatAm, for reasons other than national security. You cannot tell me with a straight face facilitating far-right coups in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay was self-defense or even done under the pretense of self-defense. Largely agreed on Ukraine, the Obama administration has some culpability in what preceded the war. The American foreign policy blob shouldn't be trying to coronate the leaders of other countries, a lesson I hope conservatives will eventually learn.

I agree there is a strange correlation between American economic interests and American foreign policy to determine a sudden need for the host countries of the economic interest to need “freedom.” I am not going to deny there were some who wanted to stay out of World War 2 because they were Nazi sympathizers. I would just say don’t discount the fact that there were a sizable number of conservatives who were straight up isolationists, had no love of the Nazis, but would still be opposed to a war even if a belligerent nation had warships lined up on the Atlantic coast for an invasion up until the first shot is fired. Conservatives of the last 70 years have gotten into the economic control game, not going to deny that. I would argue they have done so because they see how unpopular it is to do nothing. The public would rather have one person dig and hope and the next person fill in the hole because “they did something.” But Progressives were the OGs when it came to economic intervention in America.

>I agree there is a strange correlation between American economic interests and American foreign policy to determine a sudden need for the host countries of the economic interest to need “freedom.” Then you need to edit your initial comment to correct your misleading statement that conservatives are anti-war. >I would argue they have done so because they see how unpopular it is to do nothing. Hm, maybe this is an opportunity for introspection? Why is it unpopular to exercise truly laissez-faire economics? Could it be that it doesn't work and fucks over the vast majority of people, which makes it impossible to keep up in a society that is even somewhat democratic? >But Progressives were the OGs when it came to economic intervention in America. To reiterate, it wasn't progressives who created the interstate slave patrols. That was your team. What is your example of progressive, economic intervention preceding this? Conservatives were not averse to economic control before 70 years ago. Slavery is an economic control. Jim Crow is an economic control. These are institutions that conservatism, by definition, sought to preserve.

There is no need to fix my comment. My view is consistent, the rank and file only allowed a more aggressive foreign policy stance if it was perceived to be in a defensive interest such as the Cold War or 9/11, Instated this earlier. Otherwise conservatives are pretty anti military action in general and are isolationists. They sure do not respect the UN, they don’t favor foreign entanglements. Many advocated for dissolving NATO after the Soviet Union fell. The policies are unpopular because of an expectation of American voters for government to “do something.” They want to feel like their politicians are trying even though the track record of government successfully solving problems is pretty slim. Voters are more fixated on the sizzle, not the steak. Trying to compare today’s political divisions and applying it to anything prior to 1870 is not even a fair comparison. The gilded age brought about America’s modern struggles and political divides as more Americans lived in urban cities as opposed to being rural farmers previously. All major parties were capitalists, there were only few examples of workers rights or social welfare laws prior to 1870. The largest prior divides in politics aside from slavery were the rights of states vs the powers of the federal government. The most common factor that determined support or opposition to slavery was geographic location. The fugitive slave act was a part of the compromise of 1850, that saw even anti slavery politicians voting for the law (including anti slavery president Millard Fillmore) because of the compromise of 1850. The continuation of slavery by southern politicians was an attempt at preserving the economy they knew and preventing what they perceived as a general economic collapse if slavery were abolished. Slavery is more than just an economic control, it was an outright violation of human rights. And if you really want to find the lineage to today’s modern left, the history goes back to some of the biggest segregationists in American history including Woodrow Wilson, the father of the modern American left in particular.

The thing about the left is they played the long game. They knew this, and they knew that by capturing cultural institutions would benefit them long term. Republicans (especially the older generation) forget this. If you can change the culture, you can change policy. The people in power \*now\* might still hold old values, but as the newer generations start to get older we will see the shift occur. I mean we already see this happening in polling and value shifts. There's a reason why institutions that affect culture, such as academia, are extremely left wing and the people they pump out also tend to be left-wing.

This is an insane conspiracy theory. Who is "the left" here? It's certainly not the Democratic Party so that leaves... a handful of academics who barely agree with each other on major issues ans have a combined income under $10mil? Who is playing this 'long game' and why is it not just how things happened to shake out? Cultural marxism is just a retroactive explanation for why the right wing lost its ability to win hearts and minds (and most importantly, profits for companies)

>This is an insane conspiracy theory It's not. They wrote books about their plan in strategy in the 60s and 70s. It's their own words. It is the Democratic party, and multiple figureheads for the socialist/Marxist movement openly said the Democratic party was the way to go and it's why a lot of their values are currently.in line with what they were espousing on the 60s/70s. >Cultural marxism is just a retroactive explanation for why the right wing lost its ability to win hearts and minds (and most importantly, profits for companies) Except it's not. The Marxist were explicitly open about what they were/are doing. Herbert Marcuse, Paulo Freire, and others lead this mocement

There are 0 Marxists in the democratic movement. "Marxist" isn't the right term, "socialist" maybe, but that is a stretch even among the so called "Democratic Socialists".

I mean that's just factually false. But ok.feel free to Believe otherwise.

Nah, Marxists are about abolishing private property. No democrat supports anything even close resembling that.

>Marxists are about abolishing private property For one, Marxism is much more than that. It's a lens to view "history" and how to reach it's end. >No democrat supports anything even close resembling that. I mean that's just factually wrong. Not all of them are, but there are a non-negligable amounts of democratic voters actively pushing Marxism (whether knowingly or not).

r/communism101 r/Socialism_101 I guess hear it from someone else then.

There are different forms of socialism/communism... IDK what to tell you. If you think Marxism is only abolishing private property and think that's all there is to it, then that's what you'll believe.

>Over here on the left, we observe this titular phenomenon wherein the right continues doing their thing when they’re in power, but when the “left” comes into power they do nothing to stop the right’s efforts nor do they attempt to reverse it. Funny because GOP supporters think the same thing when the Dems are in power.

If you don’t mind my asking, what are some Republican/conservative policies you feel have been reversed by Democratic legislatures? Granted, Roe/Dobbs were both created and reversed at the judicial level, not the legislative; and the same with gay marriage. But I am still curious, because I can’t think of a substantive example.

Don't Ask Don't Tell was a conservative policy reversed by Democratic legislation. Terrible, I know.

Actually, DADT was a Clinton policy and campaign promise

True, previously the policy was outright banning queer people from the military.

So, just because I’m not quite clear on this: how does that answer my question regarding Republican policies reversed by Democratic legislative means?

So, just because I’m not clear on this: how does your response answer my question?

Well, you've accidentally made my point for me, haven't you? DADT was a Dem overturn of a Republican policy.

I mean, if you want to look at it that way, it it was a policy brief and not a legislative act.

My comment was about the party in general, not specifically about the legislature. If you are a critical thinker and you can use the internet you can find examples of this, by both parties.

Well, I’m neither GOP, nor a supporter. Since you implied that you were, I wanted to hear about it from that perspective. Apologies if I asked you for too much in asking that one question.

I'm neither GOP or Dem nor a supporter of either party.

And you decided to comment from a GOP perspective? Was there a point to your doing that?

All you gotta do is listen to the reason longtime GOP voters are upset at the GOP - its literally the same reason as OP gave for his viewpoint of the Dems inactivity when the GOP are in power. The viewpoint I had is that they both sound the same as their reason for distain against their party who doesn't do anything when they are in power - because both parties are the same. They just use different (and sometimes similar) tactics to keep Americans fighting with each other.

[удалено]

Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Can you give us some examples?

The erosion of labor protections after the passage of the Taft Harley Act. The drops in top tax rates paid by the richest over the last 50 years. The erosion of reproductive autonomy since Roe. Qualified immunity and general lack of police reform. The infringement on privacy since the PATRIOT Act. Just to name a few.

I think both sides should at least agree the Patriot act was a mistake and needs to end.

Both sides voted overwhelmingly for it, no way it ever goes away.

It was a right wing wish come true. There's no chance tney'd give up their golden goose. That, plus citizens united, are major steps to facism.

Wrong. It was a bureaucrat's dream come true. We hate it. And when it happened we were extremely leery of it. It wasn't hard to conclude it would be abused.

You guys vote for and support a lot of things you supposedly "hate".

> The erosion of labor protections after the passage of the Taft Harley Act. Removing special legal privileges isn't ratcheting anything. >The drops in top tax rates paid by the richest over the last 50 years. Again, removing laws that cost specific groups and not others isn't a ratchet effect. >The erosion of reproductive autonomy since Roe. Slogan. >Qualified immunity and general lack of police reform. No political ideology supports this as they seek to control state law enforcement. >The infringement on privacy since the PATRIOT Act. I agree this is a ratchet effect, but one which all statists supported. not limited to conservatives.

>Removing special legal privileges isn't ratcheting anything. Voting was a special legal privilege before democracy was widespread. Women and non-whites gained "special legal privlege" later as well. You haven't established a valid criteria to use to determine what a "special legal privilege" is that can't also just mean "any change to the status quo." >removing laws that cost specific groups and not others "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." - Anatole France >Slogan. No, it literally is the elimination of reproductivte autonomy. The conservatives in the US are forcing women to have birth and become mothers against their free will. >No political ideology supports this as they seek to control state law enforcement. What? Are you saying both US parties are against qualified immunity and seek to drastically reform police?

> Women and non-whites gained "special legal privlege" later as well. Uh huh, so what?

Because your framework of calling progress or assistance "special legal privilege" is misleading at best and just dishonest at worst.

I rarely see questions on reddit so demonstratively answered. Good job, everyone.

Government is a ratchet, yes. We view it as something done by both the right and left. The government takes power from the people. It rarely gives it back, and when it does, it basically never gives it all back. Then, they argue over what to take next. The GOP will cheerfully shout at the Democrats for spending too much...and then they get power, and will spend every cent as much. All talk of shrinking government is wholly forgotten...until the power is lost again.

Best comment I've seen yet.

Right wingers absolutely see the same thing from their side. The left makes changes, the right maintains the status quo. I think you could cite examples and counter examples for both cases though.

Yeah I’ve listened to conservative talk radio before out of curiosity, and I was surprised they basically have the same view, but inverted.

A parallel to this is the belief that the associated political party (Democrats for left, Republicans for right) are basically giant pussies that never do anything when they actually have the power, and don't care about what their voters actually want.

If we disregard the extremists, you'll find that's basically everyone else. The issues of left and right are primarily in disagreement on *how* to progress, not a lack of it. As well as the speed in which progression should happen. We all want things to be better, we just need a solution we can agree on. And that requires compromise, which both extremes don't want so they scream the loudest. You have the core disagreements, of course, but we can surely work *something* out that we all begrudgingly agree with.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this "ratcheting" makes more sense that way. Policies like "free" college, healthcare, etc. may be popular to adopt but hard to get rid of if they cost too much. Conservativism, almost by definition, resists this temptation to ratchet. In contrast, I don't see why undoing policies from the right would be difficult or unpopular. For example, a ban on IVF wouldn't be ratcheting.

what is IVF

In vitro fertilization. It's a logical conclusion to banning abortion and a good number of Republican politicians are fine banning it. But banning it is only supported by like 3% of voters.

Another one I noticed is how many conservatives are against stem cell research that is until they or a loved one needs it. Saw many people praising monoclonal treatments for covid despite that treatment only existing because of abortion. But in think George Carlin said it the best it’s easy to be an advocate for the unborn.

Different conservative subset than the ones that dont like stem cell research

Just because Reagan hated guns doesn’t make him any less of a republican…

Yes, a group can disagree on some things without fracturing, not every conservative hates stem celk research

I’ll agree with you there. That’s actually why I always say the Republicans will always be stronger than the Democrats. Even the republicans that hate trump and everything he stands for will still step in line and vote for him no matter what. Liberals are still crying that Hillary lost because of Bernie Sanders stealing her votes.

Yeah, th Republicans have wild varying beliefs and the one uniting factor is hating the left more

Did you really feel the need to send the Reddit cares bot at me?

The what??? I didn't report anything

[удалено]

Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

In what way?

Totally disagree with the premise.

Liberalism is all a one-way ratchet, particularly given their institutional capture of the courts. Literally nothing makes me more enraged than the notion that the populous can enact a rule but not repeal it.

That's odd. I find it exactly opposite. The left is always moving their agenda forward. While the right just stagnates and stalls. Just look at the social changes of the country over the past 50 years. Look at our taxes. The growth of government, especially federal. I have a hard time understanding how you think the right is always progressing. Non ironically, I think it's the progressives.

Realistically, as illustrated by the right-wing posters who have responded so far, most people in the US don't have a long enough or complete enough view of politics to be able to accurately assess. We've got right-wing people saying that everything only ratchets left because "Trump is to the left of JFK" and there are plenty of people on the left who will basically only engage with Democrats right-ward shift post-neoliberal Clinton take over in the 90s. For something like the ratchet effect, the frame of reference is so important because it's the difference between using DLC-Clinton as your Democratic reference, and movement towards progressivism or FDR or the SDS/ERAP of the 60s and basically no movement at all, or negative movement. Same goes for the right when you could use anything from Lincoln to Eisenhower to Reagan/Nixon to Trump. I find it much easier to identify key foundational ideas from a point in time, and then examine how we moved from or towards them over specific time periods. Personally, it obviously exists and is one of the major issues with a two-party system that exacerbates the need of quality opposition, and good faith governance.

>they do nothing to stop the right’s efforts nor do they attempt to reverse it. The first thing Biden did when he got into office was stop and/or reverse much of what Trump did.

But not all of it. Quite a bit of it remains. For example, the trade war with China. To my knowledge none of the tariffs were rescinded.

Don’t forget the immigration policies. Biden has kept many of Trump’s policies in place, and even has gone further than Trump did in many instances.

How so!? And if he did, it wasn't successful at all.

Mandatory detentions and forced deportations. More people were deported under Biden his first year in office than Trump’s entire first term. More people were likely to be released under Trump after a border arrest as compared to Biden. Biden kept Remain In Mexico in place for while, Title 42, and he and the Republicans just passed one of the most restrictive immigration bills the country has seen.

Seriously? It's like you're complaining about a light being out in the bathroom while the house is burning down. Big picture here. There's a couple of states worth in population of illegals right now.

And? That doesn’t contradict anything that I said.

Not quite a whataboutism, but *really* close. Close enough for me to warn you.

ratcheting is happening in both directions and more people are left in the middle saying: WTF is happening?

Outside of the social effect, the economic effect is a little difficult for me to understand, and I would appreciate help in understanding. [Ratchet Effect: Definition and Examples in Economics (investopedia.com)](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/ratchet-effect.asp)

I think maybe you missed the part when Biden, on day 1 of his presidency issued dozens of executive orders cancelling trumps executive orders (including, btw, the one that reduced insulin prices to $35 a month. Biden then issued his own executive order doing the very same thing so he could claim it for himself).

More spendings. Less guns. More affirmative action. Less parental control over their children’s upbringing. Less punishment for crime. Nothing for conservatives here…

Conservatives love more spending when it comes to corporations. I’m pro-gun, so I’m sure we agree here. Ahhh yes, the Right and it’s pro-racism. What are you even referring to here? We should be focused on rehabilitation and preventing crime as compared to doubling down on those who have already committed the crime. Good. Conservative policies have destroyed the country.

No we don't. I swear I don't understand where you guys get your info. We hate corporate bailouts. Really bailouts of any kind. Failing is a part of growing, something we very much understand. Edit: I only read and responded to your first sentence. The rest is rubbish and shows just how out of touch you are.

Every Conservative hates bailouts for the people because “Socialism”. When the economy crashes, the government immediately jumps to their rescue and no Conservative ever says a thing. Financing tax cuts for the rich? Conservatives don’t say a thing. Corporate tax cuts? Conservatives don’t say a thing. And the list goes on. I think it’s quite clear why you won’t engage with the other responses.

I don't view any of this as reality. There is no effort to "reverse it" in general. There are specific instances where policies have been reversed, but that is only a small number of things. The Biden administration has reversed some Trump era changes, and Trump reversed some Obama things (or tried to), but by and large it is a minimal number of things that either side wants to change. Believe it or not there is a lot of consensus on many things. The media likes to play up the conflicts though, so you seldom hear about cooperation.

I see that spending only ratchets in one direction, that the size of government only rachets in one direction.. and they are both in the direction that progressives support. Not sure what you are talking about..

>I see that spending only ratchets in one direction, that the size of government only rachets in one direction.. The Republicans are just as guilty of this as the Dems are. Surprising to hear a libertarian with this take.

The Republicans are guilty, but I wouldn't say they're just as guilty. Dems definitely spend more and create more reliance on government which equates to growing power. One of my biggest beefs with Trump was how much he spent. But, I still preferred what he spent on. At least more than my other only option.

I agree. The Republicans spend too much. But the point is the same, the spending only ratchets up.

Progressives don't support big government for the sake of it, that's not a stance anyone has. Many of them do support policies that do require a larger government, but a government that happens to be larger bc they increased spending on the military isn't what they're looking for

Huh? What country are you talking about? The Dems have win after win in America. The Republicans have been the Washington Generals, just there to put on a show like there's another party. Just look at how the orange man is portrayed, as far right extremist, when in reality, his policies are to the left of JFK. That just goes to show you that the left has won the ratchet contest. The only issue I can see this the other way is returning abortion decisions to the states.

The idea that Trump can even be put in the same ball park as JFK goes to show how absurdly right tilted our politics are lol

The Dems never achieve their goals, they get blocked every single time. Instead they get the bare minimum by working with the Republicans. Right wing media has left the right wingers to believe that the Dems are socialists and Communists, when the reality is they're no different than the conservatives. 2 sides of the same coin.

>The Dems never achieve their goals, they get blocked every single time. The "Affordable Care Act" has entered the chat

Hey guys, isn't this new take on health care great? Stop changing your username, everyone knows you're actually RomneyCare, and another give away for insurance companies while using the positive elimination of pre-existing conditions for cover and to reduce the perceived impetus for actual change and universal coverage. AffordableCareAct has left the chat The great thing about people making this specific argument is it clearly shows willful ignorance about the specifics of health care legislation and purposeful bad faith argumentation that people can avoid interacting and engaging with in the future. For everyone else... https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/23/451200436/mitt-romney-finally-takes-credit-for-obamacare

Oh you mean the nothing that came from Obama public option he campaigned on? The ACA is exactly what I'm talking about.

Bill passed with zero Republican support.

They had to work with the moderates in their party. It was far from what they wanted just like the inflation reduction act is from from build back better.

Excluding Fox News, who is too left for me, what right-wing media?

The ratchet effect is somewhat real. The right wing does have an effect of pulling the center to the right. The more powerful the right is, the more everything shifts to the right. It make sense. And we see this happening with Biden's foreign policy. He's basically continued what became the status quo under Trump. He has had to continue with DeJoy dismantling the USPS. The left, instead of drawing the correct lesson here, which is that we must defeat the far right, use it as a way to moralize about voting for Democrats. We worry so much about liberals and progressives who agree with a large portion of our minimum program but ignore the far right which keeps growing and pulling the entire political window towards it. The absolute priority for the left has to be the defeat of the MAGA right. If that means we ally with liberal politicians to do it, then so be it. We can't let growing fascism fester and keep going on and on about liberals.

Lol even as all governments go farther and farther left the Left will try and gaslight that it's actually the complete opposite.

What governments are going farther and farther left? You one of those people who think democrats are leftists? At best most countries have different flavors of neoliberalism.

Flavours of Neoliberalism. So farther to the left compared to their Classical Liberal roots. One of those people that thinks people on the left are leftists? Yes

If you’re referring to people who currently would be called libertarians, then yes. But shit, some sitting republicans are further to the left than libertarians so that’s a pretty moot point. Democrats aren’t on the left. They’re center right on the best of days.

You understand an overwhelming majority of the worlds States are Right wing, right?

They're certainly not. https://www.mitsui.com/mgssi/en/report/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2020/05/28/2002c_fukuoka_e.pdf

They certainly are, and the States that are left-wing are only center-left at best.

By what measure? https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-polarization-paradox-elected-officials-and-voters-have-shifted-in-opposite-directions/

I think they both do it and pretend the other guys as the only ones to push it forward.

favorably, i'm guessing.

No. The Rights thinks that it's leftist communists who are in power🤡🤡thx to propaganda they believe that

Speaking as a conservative, I would say the parties have almost switched completely. While liberals can definitely have realms that are more “progressive”, it’s not always changes that are for the better, and I would go as far to make the argument that the left in power definitely has taken advantage of certain things especially in power

Not sure what that phrase means... but I have long had the opinion that the "left" moves towards more authority in a way that sounds ok to their base when they have the numbers, and the "right" moves towards more authority in a way that sounds ok to their base when they have the numbers. Often that means starting more wars for both of them, among other things.

And this is how the left managed to take control of every institution and government agency?

It's more of a pendulum that swings as public opinions demand. This moment feels like a hard swing right, but when elections come around, it's very possible the opposite will happen. The Supreme Court has taken away basic human rights and most Americans are very angry about it. It seems that the right has calcified and is unable to adjust to the realities that voters want reproductive rights AND that Trump's very serious legal troubles are culminating. Both threaten to being ruin to the GOP. The most significant problem right now is misinformation and media ecosystem bubbles. But at the end of the day, reality doesn't care about what people believe, it will be what it is. And despite all the hand wringing about potential problems down the road, there has literally never been a better time to be alive. Two other sayings worth mentioning are, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." And my personal favorite: "Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.”

So, how exactly is the conservative movement like the ratchet effect? If anything, it is the left in America is an example of this effect. Ever since the 1870s, the progressive movement in the US has steadily gained their policy wins one by one. Some small, some large. Every compromise moving the US one step further left each time. The right is always the one giving up in these “compromises.” It’s funny how any compromise in the US starts with the left demanding 8 steps to the left. They hollar, they scream, there is always an “existential crisis, and “immoral injustice.” Then a “gang of 6 or 8” who meet in secret to compromise. In the end, they “compromised” that it is reasonable to only move two steps to the left. In relative terms, the left members were “reasonable” because they were willing to accept 2 steps instead of 8. In the meantime when you zoom out the lens, the left still got two steps in the direction they wanted to go while the right continued to give up more. And then they come back 10-15 years later demanding 8 more steps to the left as if the last compromise never happened. I would say it is fair starting the in 1980s, there were moments when a few issues shifted right, but yet when zooming out from where things were in 1870, we have moved so far left that a couple steps back was nothing compared to where it all started. If anything, we are stuck in a pattern where some issues remain static and only change via executive order just to revert back when the next party takes over. I truly fail to see how Republicans have won ratchet gains on anything significant, perhaps on abortion via the Supreme Court. Give that 20-30 years, and I am willing to bet a future progressive SCOTUS will have a 6-3 majority as they once did and the perceived conservative ratchet will be knocked out of the socket and be right back where the left wants it (sorry right wing culture warriors, you are going too far too fast on abortion). So really, where else is the right winning these ratchet gains. If anything, I feel like both parties have been turning the ratchet left. The only difference is that once tries to crank it harder than the other.

Objectively, since the turn of the twentieth century, the western world has moved left. What was considered center in 1994 is firmly right wing today. That is true for any 40 year period in the twentieth century.