Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by exceller 5 years, 9 months ago
    Good reading.

    "As we saw in Bernie Sanders’ campaign, the youngest generation of liberals is embracing socialism openly—something that would have been unheard of during the Cold War."

    Yes, and they have the slightest idea what they are embracing. I always say that these people should live in a communist country for a year to realize what they are backing. The problem in the US that these snowflakes grew up in an environment that enabled them to do whatever they want. In a communist dictatorship (it must be a dictatorship in order to "function") they can't do that.

    By the same token, consider the Hollywood crowd: are you prepared to get $500 per picture, if even that, in a communist "economy"? These nitwits assume that their lavish life style will follow them into communism. Yes, there is an elite in the communist society, with summer houses and Swiss bank accounts, but it is only for party officials.

    Regarding the Constitution and the left: I was amused the other day when Harris, the most rabid on the left, was complaining how the Constitution would be subject to abuse should they lose the Midterms. She said that with straight face despite the common knowledge of it being the target of change since the first day Hussein came to power.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 5 years, 9 months ago
    A worthwhile read:
    “Six years ago I wrote a book about Barack Obama in which I predicted that modern American liberalism, under pressures both fiscal and philosophical, would either go out of business or be forced to radicalize. If it chose the latter, I predicted, it could radicalize along two lines: towards socialism or towards an increasingly post-modern form of leadership...”

    The author describe the problem well. How there are two sides, where one side sees the Constitution, while the other side sees what it wants to see. One side protects natural or individual rights, while the other side protects selected group identity rights. One side is for free speech, while the other side is for “equal” and politically correct speech. One side is for freedom of religion, while the other side is for freedom from religion.

    That’s the problem. The author describes five possible outcomes...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 9 months ago
    "We are fast on the road to becoming two countries."
    This is hugely optimistic to say there's a civil war, with one side wanting to limit gov't to the limits of the Constitution. Where is that side? Notice how he gives solid real-world examples of socialism, tribalism, identity politics and so on. The article is about regime politics having opposing goals, so I expected him next to give real-world examples of people wanting to limit government radically. But they don't exist in significant numbers. The broad consensus is gov't solutions to problems, near-trillion dollar deficits, and using gov't force to help people we identify with and hurt people who are different.

    I'm usually an optimist. But I'm starting to be concerned that people who believe in a large and intrusive gov't in one form or another will realize they're the same and in the majority.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 5 years, 9 months ago
      I think there are people who want to limit government, but it is a far cry to declare that those people don't exist simply because they don't currently control enough of the reins of power to effect their proposed changes. I would point to the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives as evidence of this, as would the push for a Convention of States - of which the sole purpose is to "radically limit government".

      The statistics about voter political ideology are actually fairly clear. You have about 30% who are staunchly conservative, 25% who are staunchly progressive, and a huge chunk of "independents" in the middle that waver all over the place. Those independents determine who controls office at any given point in time. Most of them are ill-informed when it comes to politics from an actual policy standpoint and are swayed by any number of false or emotional arguments - as can be seen from any number of "man-on-the-street" interviews, etc. The general populace of the United States has become so disconnected from the historical basis for this nation that they no longer value truth, liberty, freedom, etc. - and this can be seen especially in the Millennials' support for socialism.

      No, the majority are not those trying to overthrow America. Neither are they those trying to restore the Constitution. The majority are ignoramuses. And it is who THEY vote for which determines the future of this nation.

      PS - didn't downvote you.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 9 months ago
        "it is a far cry to declare that those people don't exist "
        Maybe it's hyperbole when I said "They don't exist in significant numbers". There are probably millions of them. My point is they are not nearly big enough to be a player in "cold civil war".

        "The general populace of the United States has become so disconnected from the historical basis for this nation that they no longer value truth, liberty, freedom, etc."
        That's what I mean, especially about "liberty". As you say, there are leftwing and rightwing partisans who are roughly equal in number. The undecideds tip the scales, but most of them swayed by emotional arguments or at least things other than liberty. The House Freedom Caucus and Democratic Freedom Caucus are a minority, not a major player in a cold civil war.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo