Where did the intelligent liberals go?

[All_Pro_Bills]

On 1/30/2022 at 1:12 PM, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

True, but the disparity in numbers is not the real problem.

 

PPP forum: “Liberals are all stupid, lazy, power-hungry, and morally repugnant.”

 

Also PPP forum: “Hey, how come liberals don’t want to converse with us??”

 

 

Interesting take. However, I’d drop the “intelligent liberal” versus “stupid liberal” dichotomy because it’s unproductive. If I’m interpreting your post correctly, you seem to be asking why the modern American left is so pro-establishment and wondering what happened to all the anti-establishment lefties (i.e. the lefties who are pro-labor, pro-free speech, and anti-American imperialism and who tend to prioritize these issues over social justice warrior ones)?

 

Well as someone who happens to be personally well-connected with far-left NYC politicians, I can assure you that this anti-establishment left still exists and is fairly robust, albeit currently powerless. They formed the backbone of the 2008 Obama campaign in opposition to Hillary’s, the 2016 Sanders campaign in opposition again to Hillary’s, and the 2020 Sanders campaign in opposition to basically the rest of the Democratic Party field. You probably wouldn’t know of their existence if you only consumed corporate media like Fox and MSNBC, but you will hear from them again during the mid-term primaries and again during the 2024 primaries. The anti-establishment subset of the left has been embroiled in a 14-month-long civil war over political strategy and various policy purity litmus tests with the goal of identifying all the poseurs, but they will be ready to do battle with the Democratic Party establishment when the time is ripe! Though winner-take-all electoral systems do make strange bedfellows, unfortunately…

 

A small aside: I really don’t like the sloppy use of the word “liberal” in this thread. Like “Marxist” and “progressive,” it’s a label that has lost most of its original meaning in the American vernacular. Please add a modifier. Thank you. There are “classical liberals” on the right, and then there are “modern liberals” that comprise the left along with the “center-leftists,” “social democrats,” and “democratic socialists.” The “modern liberals” and “center-leftists” are essentially variations of “neoliberal,” while the “social democrats” and “democratic socialists” are “progressives.” And the “democratic socialists,” of course, are the only true “Marxists” among the types. Does that make sense to everyone?? Agree? Disagree? I’m a real stickler for language precision, as you can tell…

 

Final comment: right-wingers who live in glass establishment houses shouldn’t be throwing stones! The neocons and crony capitalists still own the GOP, despite all the sweet political nothings that every right-winger’s favorite faux populist boyfriend in the orange clown makeup has whispered in their ears during the past half-decade.

That's exactly what I'm asking (bold above).  And thank you for responding with a lot of insights.  And sorting out the "liberal" label.  So I guess I'm a "classical liberal" or perhaps used to be one?  For reference my upbringing was in a Hubert Humphrey type household.  My family was heavily involved in the labor and civil right movement and associating with members of those causes shaped a lot of my views.  And when's the last time any leader from the labor movement was invited to the White House for a sit down? A party that claims to fight for the working person that ignores and abandons those workers while embracing all types of victims.   

 

And yes, I can't characterize anyone fighting for or advocating for the establishment, either the big government stepping all over the little guy or big powerful corporations as any kind of liberal.  To me that speaks of authoritarianism.  And ironically these are the same people shouting about dangers to democracy while ignoring their own inclinations and the dangers their views present.  They seem to support and crave mandates, censorship, things like that.

 

I also don't view this establishment, or deep state, or whatever we'd like to call it, as a left vs. right, liberal vs conservative thing.  I see at as a basic operating system running in the background no matter which party is in power.  I didn't vote for Trump in either 2016 or 2020 no matter what some posters here might think.  I didn't have any strong opposition to Bernie Sanders and was dismayed the party sabotaged his campaign twice by throwing their weight behind Hillary and dragging in Biden in 2020 to provide some image of a moderate to the voters.  The Democratic candidate that resonated best to me was Tulsi Gabbard but I knew she would never win the primary fight because of her anti-war stance.  An agent of Putin, right?  Because she doesn't want to see Americans fight and die for unworthy causes.  War which fatten their wallets and enhance their power.  My guess is that if Bernie or Tulsi happened to win the general election these establishment powers would have given them the same treatment they gave Trump.

 

I don't understand how people identifying with being "progressive" can advocate for a constant state of warfare.  And true, neocon elements do the same thing.  So as far as that goes I put them into the same category and consider them both a danger to peace and cooperation.  

 

I'm not a fan of Trump as a person and don't support most of his positions but that doesn't mean I don't support some of them.  And in many cases what I view as the extreme alternatives presented by progressives make Trump often outrageous positions appear to be moderate views.  I thought his tax reform was a corporate giveaway and a big mistake along with being a slap in the face for anyone thinking he was a genuine populist.  He's not.  But I also don't like the Democrats singular focus on identity politics.  I think that message has worn out its welcome.  I don't like woke or social justice ideologies either.  I view those people as mental and emotional weaklings.  I don't understand how the current woke military leadership thinks they can purge "political extremists" from the ranks and fill the services out with woke soldiers and win a war with them doing the fighting.  They just don't have the make up for it all.  

I could go on for another couple thousand words but I'll stop.  And I feel that I didn't abandon the Democratic party by adopting more centrist views (extremist views according to the current administration).  They abandoned me.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[SoCal Deek]

12 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

That's exactly what I'm asking (bold above).  And thank you for responding with a lot of insights.  And sorting out the "liberal" label.  So I guess I'm a "classical liberal" or perhaps used to be one?  For reference my upbringing was in a Hubert Humphrey type household.  My family was heavily involved in the labor and civil right movement and associating with members of those causes shaped a lot of my views.  And when's the last time any leader from the labor movement was invited to the White House for a sit down? A party that claims to fight for the working person that ignores and abandons those workers while embracing all types of victims.   

 

And yes, I can't characterize anyone fighting for or advocating for the establishment, either the big government stepping all over the little guy or big powerful corporations as any kind of liberal.  To me that speaks of authoritarianism.  And ironically these are the same people shouting about dangers to democracy while ignoring their own inclinations and the dangers their views present.  They seem to support and crave mandates, censorship, things like that.

 

I also don't view this establishment, or deep state, or whatever we'd like to call it, as a left vs. right, liberal vs conservative thing.  I see at as a basic operating system running in the background no matter which party is in power.  I didn't vote for Trump in either 2016 or 2020 no matter what some posters here might think.  I didn't have any strong opposition to Bernie Sanders and was dismayed the party sabotaged his campaign twice by throwing their weight behind Hillary and dragging in Biden in 2020 to provide some image of a moderate to the voters.  The Democratic candidate that resonated best to me was Tulsi Gabbard but I knew she would never win the primary fight because of her anti-war stance.  An agent of Putin, right?  Because she doesn't want to see Americans fight and die for unworthy causes.  War which fatten their wallets and enhance their power.  My guess is that if Bernie or Tulsi happened to win the general election these establishment powers would have given them the same treatment they gave Trump.

 

I don't understand how people identifying with being "progressive" can advocate for a constant state of warfare.  And true, neocon elements do the same thing.  So as far as that goes I put them into the same category and consider them both a danger to peace and cooperation.  

 

I'm not a fan of Trump as a person and don't support most of his positions but that doesn't mean I don't support some of them.  And in many cases what I view as the extreme alternatives presented by progressives make Trump often outrageous positions appear to be moderate views.  I thought his tax reform was a corporate giveaway and a big mistake along with being a slap in the face for anyone thinking he was a genuine populist.  He's not.  But I also don't like the Democrats singular focus on identity politics.  I think that message has worn out its welcome.  I don't like woke or social justice ideologies either.  I view those people as mental and emotional weaklings.  I don't understand how the current woke military leadership thinks they can purge "political extremists" from the ranks and fill the services out with woke soldiers and win a war with them doing the fighting.  They just don't have the make up for it all.  

I could go on for another couple thousand words but I'll stop.  And I feel that I didn't abandon the Democratic party by adopting more centrist views (extremist views according to the current administration).  They abandoned me.

 

 

I have to ask…do you own a corporation? 

[All_Pro_Bills]

17 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I have to ask…do you own a corporation? 

No, but I work for one of the larger one's.

[SectionC3]

The same place as the intelligent conservatives, apparently.  

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

No, but I work for one of the larger one's.

Fair enough....but as the owner of a corporation I can tell you I have very few choices of what I can do with the Profits at the end of the year.

 

First, I can declare those profits and then pay taxes on them at the lower corporate rate.

Second, I can distribute those taxes to the Owners/Shareholders (me) and then pay the higher individual tax rate.

Finally, the IRS will allow me to reserve/suppress those profits until next year by not 'recognizing' them this year in order to wait and see if they'll be spent next year.  

 

So....most years the profits are split between Option 2 and 3 above, but ultimately the taxes are paid at the HIGHER individual rate.  There isn't any place else to put them! All the bloviating about corporate tax rates is uninformed nonsense from people who don't own corporations. 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 2/1/2022 at 10:52 AM, All_Pro_Bills said:

That's exactly what I'm asking (bold above).  And thank you for responding with a lot of insights.  And sorting out the "liberal" label.  So I guess I'm a "classical liberal" or perhaps used to be one?  For reference my upbringing was in a Hubert Humphrey type household.  My family was heavily involved in the labor and civil right movement and associating with members of those causes shaped a lot of my views.  And when's the last time any leader from the labor movement was invited to the White House for a sit down? A party that claims to fight for the working person that ignores and abandons those workers while embracing all types of victims.   

 

And yes, I can't characterize anyone fighting for or advocating for the establishment, either the big government stepping all over the little guy or big powerful corporations as any kind of liberal.  To me that speaks of authoritarianism.  And ironically these are the same people shouting about dangers to democracy while ignoring their own inclinations and the dangers their views present.  They seem to support and crave mandates, censorship, things like that.

 

I also don't view this establishment, or deep state, or whatever we'd like to call it, as a left vs. right, liberal vs conservative thing.  I see at as a basic operating system running in the background no matter which party is in power.  I didn't vote for Trump in either 2016 or 2020 no matter what some posters here might think.  I didn't have any strong opposition to Bernie Sanders and was dismayed the party sabotaged his campaign twice by throwing their weight behind Hillary and dragging in Biden in 2020 to provide some image of a moderate to the voters.  The Democratic candidate that resonated best to me was Tulsi Gabbard but I knew she would never win the primary fight because of her anti-war stance.  An agent of Putin, right?  Because she doesn't want to see Americans fight and die for unworthy causes.  War which fatten their wallets and enhance their power.  My guess is that if Bernie or Tulsi happened to win the general election these establishment powers would have given them the same treatment they gave Trump.

 

I don't understand how people identifying with being "progressive" can advocate for a constant state of warfare.  And true, neocon elements do the same thing.  So as far as that goes I put them into the same category and consider them both a danger to peace and cooperation.  

 

I'm not a fan of Trump as a person and don't support most of his positions but that doesn't mean I don't support some of them.  And in many cases what I view as the extreme alternatives presented by progressives make Trump often outrageous positions appear to be moderate views.  I thought his tax reform was a corporate giveaway and a big mistake along with being a slap in the face for anyone thinking he was a genuine populist.  He's not.  But I also don't like the Democrats singular focus on identity politics.  I think that message has worn out its welcome.  I don't like woke or social justice ideologies either.  I view those people as mental and emotional weaklings.  I don't understand how the current woke military leadership thinks they can purge "political extremists" from the ranks and fill the services out with woke soldiers and win a war with them doing the fighting.  They just don't have the make up for it all.  

I could go on for another couple thousand words but I'll stop.  And I feel that I didn't abandon the Democratic party by adopting more centrist views (extremist views according to the current administration).  They abandoned me.

 

Great post! Hard to disagree with anything here.

 

Based solely on what you’ve typed in this thread, I might broadly classify you as a “populist centrist” rather than a “classical liberal.” Tulsi Gabbard resonated well with populist centrists in 2020.

 

Does that make sense? If not, maybe think geometrically. Think of the spectrum of politics as divided into a 2-dimensional box along left-right and populist-establishment axes, with the 4 corners as follows:

 

1. Left populist (roughly represented with Bernie Sanders).

2. Right populist (roughly represented with Donald Trump).

3. Right establishment (best represented with Mitch McConnell).

4. Left establishment (best represented with Joe Biden).

 

2020 Tulsi (she has moved further right and slightly more establishment since then) was the connecting tissue between corners #1 and #2. I think you may be somewhere along that nebulous middle edge region. Many Americans are!

 

Slight digression: Elizabeth Warren was the 2020 connecting tissue between corners #1 and #4. AOC is the heir apparent to octogenarian Bernie, but she’s been drifting toward corner #4 since March 2020. The civil war within the anti-establishment left (corner #1…my people!) that I alluded to in my previous post mostly concerns political strategy of whether to gain actual political power by unifying more with corner #2 (through third parties, most likely) or with corner #4 (through the Democratic Party’s primary process). The questions then become: which corner to trust more, what policies to concede, what policies to compromise on, what policies to promulgate, what policies to persuade others on, etc.? I don’t know if you have followed my PPP writings in the past, but I lean HEAVILY toward a corner #2 alliance because I REALLY can’t stand the pro-censorship and pro-military industrial complex/American imperialism that resides along corner #4.

 

Now whether you can be better classified as a “classical liberal” requires a bunch of tedious additional questions related to macroeconomics and Constitutional interpretations. Even though the “classical liberal” term has a specific definition rooted in history, I tend to look at it as synonymous nowadays with “libertarian.” Not the vague definition, mind you, of being against excessive government involvement in all aspects of our lives (because who isn’t, really?). I prefer a more tightly defined one that means someone who wants to reduce the responsibilities of the U.S. federal government back to what was carefully enumerated in the U.S. Constitution…and nothing more. Examples: are you against Glass-Steagall, in favor of Bretton Woods, against social security, in favor of a flat tax, against increasing federal debt during recessions, or in favor of union-negotiated health care plans over a socialized one? If you can answer “yes” to at least some of these questions, then you might be a classical liberal…and may God have mercy on your soul. You reside somewhere between corner #2 and corner #3.