OK. My last comment was tongue in cheek. Now I'm interested, call it opposition research if you will.
Who is further left in your mind, Obama or Hillary?
2016 Presidential Race
- Thread starter Theirb123
- Start date
- Status
Who is further left in your mind, Obama or Hillary?
Obama, definitely. But it's still relative.
Hillary voted for the Iraq invasion, Keystone XL, WAS for the TPP (but has subsequently come out against it), was against single-payer healthcare (like the original incarnation of Obamacare), her SuperPAC's top donors include Citigroup/Goldman Sachs/JP Morgan/Morgan Stanley in the top 5, was originally against gay marriage (but began supporting it in the last two years or so).
Look, I know that the current political discourse is such that any candidate we don't like is automatically an "ultra-liberal communist" or "literally Hitler", but when you really evaluate every candidate on the Liberal/Conservative continuum, there aren't many that stray very far from the center. Certain wedge issues, like immigration or gun control, might make it seem like certain candidates drift further to one side or the other simply because they're so divisive, but that's not really the case. I believe that a true "ultra-liberal" would be calling for full government control of industry (in Marx's terms, "seiz[ing] the means of production), absolute distribution of wealth (beyond just a progressive tax scheme), and full withdrawal from international interventionism. Bernie Sanders doesn't even advocate that, let alone Hillary.
Hillary voted for the Iraq invasion, Keystone XL, WAS for the TPP (but has subsequently come out against it), was against single-payer healthcare (like the original incarnation of Obamacare), her SuperPAC's top donors include Citigroup/Goldman Sachs/JP Morgan/Morgan Stanley in the top 5, was originally against gay marriage (but began supporting it in the last two years or so).
Look, I know that the current political discourse is such that any candidate we don't like is automatically an "ultra-liberal communist" or "literally Hitler", but when you really evaluate every candidate on the Liberal/Conservative continuum, there aren't many that stray very far from the center. Certain wedge issues, like immigration or gun control, might make it seem like certain candidates drift further to one side or the other simply because they're so divisive, but that's not really the case. I believe that a true "ultra-liberal" would be calling for full government control of industry (in Marx's terms, "seiz[ing] the means of production), absolute distribution of wealth (beyond just a progressive tax scheme), and full withdrawal from international interventionism. Bernie Sanders doesn't even advocate that, let alone Hillary.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 726
What you just described is a totalitarianism
I can agree that by strict definition, Obama and Hillary don't meet or come close to the strict definition of liberalism, however, I don't think they can be fit into a specific niche. They are certainly "left" given their desire to grow the government for their political needs. To be fair, a similar argument could be made for many conservatives and how they don't come close or meet the strict definition of conservatives. Still, your definition of ultra-liberal is flawed.
Far left ideology could definitely be considered totalitarian. It requires strong central control.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 726
True, the argument could also be made that far left would circle the continuum by being fascist in their own way. My point is that using the strict definition, the standard falls short. It appears that there is a rift forming between the social definition and the academic definition.
I'm not arguing that it couldn't be fascist, although fascism is typically associated with a right-wing, militaristic political ideology. An actual leftist state can easily become fascist. What I'm arguing is that Hillary is not an ultra-liberal by any metric.
Different measures. Within the spectrum of Global politics and political theory you are certainly correct. Within the spectrum of American politics she, Obama and Sanders are about as far left as we've seen in candidates with a shot at winning. The problem is that the center has shifted. You're speaking in absolutes where most speak in relative terms. The "center" moves as it represents the top of the bell curve of societal beliefs at the time. During the 70's and 80's Mitt Romney would have been a left of center candidate and the three would have been the fringe. The shift to the left of the general population has changed our definitions in American politics.
The danger is that the shift to the left will, if not corrected, result in violence and potentially destroy the country.
We're almost there and Obama has done more to tear this country apart fiscally, societally and through a flood of immigration than any other President in history. I weep for the youth that will never see the US that I grew up in.
Last edited:
This is kind of funny in a demeaning way. I'm not surprised by HuffPo in the least, but I love how CNN can "report" this and remain above the mud. I don't like Trump, but I love how he's exposing, for anyone without blinders, how some "news" outlets work. He's gotten so far under their skin they are willing to insult citizens? That's journalism these days?
Vermin.
Huffington Post blasts Donald Trump as 'racist, sexist demagogue' - CNNPolitics.com
Vermin.
Huffington Post blasts Donald Trump as 'racist, sexist demagogue' - CNNPolitics.com
Driving more people into the Trump Camp.
Is Hillary that desperate?
Trump needed to win which he did, but Sanders needed a big win. 10, maybe 15 points, and I think Sanders would be happy, but 20? 20 points over Clinton? She has to be freaking out right now.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,237
Clinton still came out with more delegates from what I understand due to "super delegates" who can vote for whoever they want.
Which is garbage, but that's our system.
No, that's the Democrat system, Republicans run theirs differently.
Funny how the Super Delegates can "ignore the people" and do whatever they please.
But Republican winner-take-all primaries are bullshit too.
Good point. Garbage is still garbage and while I hate to be pedantic, it serves as a reminder that we don't live in a democracy. "The people" are still subject to the whims of the system.
That's been the case for a number of years but no more. Left is getting Lefter and Right is getting Righter. The ideological differences between the two have become much clearer and better defined. The middle ground is shrinking as opposing sides move farther apart and become more firmly entrenched in their respective views. Everybody is becoming more "Ultra". The ground is moving beneath our feet.
Brill
SOF Support
Righty tighty, lefty loosey!
ryno762
Unverified
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2015
- Messages
- 35
The two party system is broken. Thomas Jefferson would be appalled to see what has become of our election. He warned against this. I don't know anybody that wholeheartedly agrees with the platform of either party, you just have to pick the appalling one.
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,237
Yeah. I would vote for a socially liberal republican. Unfortunately that doesn't exist. The closest thing is maybe Rand Paul, but he went pretty far right to appease the evangelicals.
Evangelicals are ruining this country in my mind. The Christian agenda is a huge part of the reason I'm a liberal.
ryno762
Unverified
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2015
- Messages
- 35
I'm in the same boat. I believe our founders would identify more with the libertarian party than the major ones. On a brighter note neither Trump or Sanders is very religious and they both did well yesterday.
I'm a big fan of Russ Roberts podcast EconTalk he host many Libertarians. He has influenced my political views. Nice calm rational discussion with some very smart people.
I'm a big fan of Russ Roberts podcast EconTalk he host many Libertarians. He has influenced my political views. Nice calm rational discussion with some very smart people.
Given our two party system, what's the point of being a Libertarian? I'm throwing this out for everyone, but I here I see it and I talk to people who identify as Libertarian, but so what? Maybe at the local level it means something, but at the state and national levels you might as well identify as an NHL goalie in the NBA.
- Status
