Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the idea of "left" vs "right" in American politics has become meaningless and confusing.
Originally, as far as I know, "right" meant supporters of the established rulers, and "left" meant the opponents of the established rulers.
It does not mean that anymore.
Now we use "left" to refer to Democrats, liberals and socialists. And "right" refers to Republicans, libertarians, and social traditionalists.
All those things do NOT fit into the "left" and "right" boxes. How is a libertarian a supporter of the established rulers? How is a liberal Democrat an opponent of the established rulers?
Our political categories have evolved way beyond the left-right dichotomy. And they probably never fit even at the beginning.
The major division right now, as I see it, is the general public vs the globalist elite. By the old definition, that would make 99% of us "leftists."
This was especially confusing during the Trump election. Democrats had absolutely no idea that Trump's middle class supporters were angry about the same things that middle class Democrats were angry about.
Many voters chose Trump because he seemed to be an opponent of the globalist elite, the established rulers. In other words, by the old definition, Trump was seen as a leftist.
I think we need to stop naming things incorrectly, and was also should stop trying to squeeze all ideas into one of two parties.
2 parties are an inevitable outcome of a winner take all system, coalitions are made to consolidate power not really to represent their respective constituents accurately. Since power is what is required to win, and there is no benefit to being 2nd, 3rd, 4th places in our elections, that means that eventually 2 competing powers will emerge with a loose consensus of mostly unrelated beliefs... because that is the only way they have a chance of winning, and parties that don't win at least some of the time are pushed to irrelevance because they have no real representation. A system that grants proportional representation would allow for smaller, more stratified and diverse groups of beliefs to compete.
I agree BTW that the 2 major party platforms are poor placeholders for what most people actually believe.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,663,359 times
Reputation: 1411
I agree with the points you two are making. The problem is that we have too many people who vote according to one, or maybe two, issues. Not very many people can talk in any substantive way about policies; they rather get caught up in cults of personality.
For those who are interested in learning more about politics and the Constitution, The Federalist Papers is not a bad place to start.
I agree with the points you two are making. The problem is that we have too many people who vote according to one, or maybe two, issues. Not very many people can talk in any substantive way about policies; they rather get caught up in cults of personality.
For those who are interested in learning more about politics and the Constitution, The Federalist Papers is not a bad place to start.
One or two issues is what it should be on the national level imo. The federal government has too much power and the states not nearly enough. We have problems because there are so many issues to vote over.
And as far as 1 issue, anyone who brings all the troops home to protect our borders like the constitution says, gets my vote. it's not even a close call for me. That's a definite.
I think the idea of "left" vs "right" in American politics has become meaningless and confusing.
Originally, as far as I know, "right" meant supporters of the established rulers, and "left" meant the opponents of the established rulers.
It does not mean that anymore.
Now we use "left" to refer to Democrats, liberals and socialists. And "right" refers to Republicans, libertarians, and social traditionalists.
All those things do NOT fit into the "left" and "right" boxes. How is a libertarian a supporter of the established rulers? How is a liberal Democrat an opponent of the established rulers?
Our political categories have evolved way beyond the left-right dichotomy. And they probably never fit even at the beginning.
The major division right now, as I see it, is the general public vs the globalist elite. By the old definition, that would make 99% of us "leftists."
This was especially confusing during the Trump election. Democrats had absolutely no idea that Trump's middle class supporters were angry about the same things that middle class Democrats were angry about.
Many voters chose Trump because he seemed to be an opponent of the globalist elite, the established rulers. In other words, by the old definition, Trump was seen as a leftist.
I think we need to stop naming things incorrectly, and was also should stop trying to squeeze all ideas into one of two parties.
Left vs right is more polarized than ever according to the polls.
Left is comprised of oppressed minorities and white guilt liberals. Right is comprised of white supremist morons and Constitution loving americans who don't want men who wear mini skirts and wigs in women's bathrooms.
[The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left.]
I have not read the rules of the CD forums. Is one of the rules that you have to be snotty and sarcastic? Is there a rule that you must be derisive even when you are obviously wrong and have no idea what you are talking about?
Admittedly, there isn't much politeness on internet forums in general. But CD deserves the prize.
And having these 2 over-simplified categories seriously distorts some peoples' thinking. For example, if they are a Democrat they will automatically disagree with everything any Republican says. And vice versa. If a Republican says "water is wet" you can be sure there will be Democrats who strongly disagree, just because a Republican said it. And of course logic goes right out the window when people get like this.
One or two issues is what it should be on the national level imo. The federal government has too much power and the states not nearly enough. We have problems because there are so many issues to vote over.
And as far as 1 issue, anyone who brings all the troops home to protect our borders like the constitution says, gets my vote. it's not even a close call for me. That's a definite.
Makes sense to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
