I know that this may come to surprise to some of us...

[MrScorpio]

But America is NOT a liberal country.

Frankly, it's NEVER been a liberal country and I can pretty much guarantee that it won't be a liberal country in any of our lifetimes.

Pretty much every progressive move that America has made throughout its existence has come about because of one of three reasons:

- Correction of a gross oversight

- Correcting of a rightward turn gone horribly wrong

- Somebody figured that they could make some money out of it

If America hasn't found a reason to go left, based on one of those three choices, then you can bet dollars to donuts, that it will go right.

Right is the default position in this country, along with reactionary and self-indulgent and spiced with a collective memory that's shorter than that of a two-day old puppy. You can forget appealing to American's reasoning that we're better off being a social-democracy like much of Europe. Let's face it, these are people who can't even figure out that English and Spanish are both European languages that are spoken on this side of the pond, not 'Murikan and Mexikin. So it's pretty easy for them to divorce the roads that they drive on and the clean water that they drink from the taxes that they need to pay to keep them drivable and drinkable.

So, it really is no surprise that the GOP made gains...

The American people weren't forced to reject them and they ALWAYS have to be forced to reject Republicans, they're the Golden Boys and BMOCs. Those guys make them feel good.


US? We're the Nerds... Although they may need the nerds to figure out how to fix all the problems that are created by the arrogant and incompetent Golden Boys, they'll never, ever love us.

We remind them too much that they have to face responsibility from time to time.


And responsibility is rarely ever fun or self-indulgent.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Well said, and how true. Dammit.

Recommended.

[EFerrari]

2. Then how do you explain the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution

and the Bill of Rights?

America has always been plagued by the authoritarian Puritan influence but it was most definitely founded on liberal ethics.

[Ikonoklast]

Dupe/delete

[EFerrari]

7. At the time, it certainly was.

[MrScorpio]

6. Reasons one and three...

Rejected England because they were bleeding us dry, so we decided to become independent a country and keep our own money.

The Bill of Rights came about because of an oversight in the Constitution.

They were forced to do it because it was the best move to make at the time.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

10. I'm not getting your "oversight" logic here.

If it is an "oversight" then doesn't that mean it SHOULD HAVE been included in the FIRST place? Meaning the original intent WAS liberal.

[MrScorpio]

12. There's a reason why the Bill of Rights are Amendments and not part of the original intent

It had to pointed out that the Constitution was lacking some pretty basic provisions and still it had to amended to fix the rest of the oversights and delays, like voting rights for women and the immediate abolishment slave trade, with full citizenship rights for EVERYONE who was born in this country.

The Civil War pretty much forced the country to resolve that last issue.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

14. The reason the BOR is not part of the original document is NOT ...

... because the framers thought it would be OK to restrict free speech an compel self incrimination. It was because some thought these protections didn't NEED to be enumerated. Not to mention the BOR was added only a couple years AFTER the original.

[MrScorpio]

19. Well it would have been kind of obvious to include all of that neat stuff at the beginning, right?

If the necessity was always extant, then it should have been enumerated in the beginning.

[joshcryer]

65. Nonsense, western era thinkers thought these things were common damn sense.

You seem to be suggesting that it was an afterthought, when we know that they believed these were rights to begin with.

[MrScorpio]

75. Equal rights only for some people...

Others, not so equal.

Unless of course, they were taken from the ownership class.

[EFerrari]

18. And all of those issues were raised here, unlike in other countries

for decades or longer.

If this had been a right leaning country, they would never have provided for elections, period, let alone, gone to all the trouble and turmoil to come up with our system.

[MrScorpio]

17. Oversights can also be intentional

Such as the way the Forefathers left the slavery question up to be answered by subsequent generations.

They all knew exactly what they were doing with that puppy.

Because, it was more profitable for this country to have, keep and work slaves, rather than give up all of that nifty revenue from unpaid labor by emancipating them after independence.

The same applied to the Bill of Rights, the Framers originally thought that they could get away with pulling the same crap that the British pulled on them. Then after a bunch of up in arms white guys made it clear to them that they needed to fix the Constitution, they finally came through and did the right thing.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

31. OMG we have entered bizarro land.

"the Framers originally thought that they could get away with pulling the same crap that the British pulled on them."

You zero comprehension of the history of the BOR.

[MrScorpio]

35. It's all about the Golden Rule

He who has the gold makes the rules... Except for that pesky corollary about loaded muskets, pick axes and rural tax rebellions.

[Caretha]

58. Wrong!

It wasn't that they didn't know slavery was wrong, or that any type of economical reason to endorse it wasn't wrong, it was that they knew it would not garner the 13 colony support that was so desperately needed in order to proceed with breaking the ties with the overlords of England.

[MrScorpio]

60. So in other words, they triangulated, right?

Where have I heard that before?

[Caretha]

64. I'm not going to bandy one sentence

arguments with you Mr. Scorpio. They understood economics and control in a way that you obviously don't. Again - go read a few books and learn. They understood corporations...although that's not what it was called back then...and they put incredible restrictions on them, not necessarily in every line...but it is there. Until those restrictions were lifted in the 1890's, what they proposed and wrote, was a document that would grow with and encompass the ignorant until they were "evolved", so to speak - eventually leading them to understand that owning a human being and other "inherent human rights" was not legal nor rectified in the constitution. Those "rights" of other humans was not to be "negotiated" by the populace. They did not trust the poplace to understand those principals, and today's history proves them right.

Your ignorance was what they hoped to curtail....although they were also intelligent enough to realize that it wouldn't/couldn't/might not be enough in the future as you are evidence of.

They did the best they could, and it really does not relate to your definition of what triangulation means today and your one sentence rebuttal to me, is a laughable knee jerk response from a dumb ass uneducated jackwagon.

[MrScorpio]

69. And, still had you and I lived during the time of the Framers

You'd be classified as a second class citizen, without the power to vote and I'd be classified as three-fifths a person and the property of my slave owner, just like my ancestors.

And once the country industrialized, child laborers worked and died in the mines and factories without stepping one toe in public school.

Our food was unsanitary, because it was profitable to make it that way and immigrants were confined to slums, when they weren't threatened with deportations for demanding better living conditions and basic worker's rights.

Drugs laws were drafted specifically for putting black and brown people in jail.

And even after emancipation, even being black on the street after sundown meant that you're taking your life in your own hands if found out.

Many workers had no rights, other than what the company store had deemed to give them.

And so on...

Since day one, power conceded nothing without a struggle. And the history of America has always been the story of the struggle of ripping ones "God-given" rights from the fingertips of the ownership class. This country was established in an intentionally flawed manner, so that some should always have an advantage over others. It's still that way today. Just ask our LGBT friends about straight privilege.

No one, especially those at the short end of the stick, ever got anything simply because the Founders did it right the first time. What was gained had to be taken. Oversights had to be corrected. And a lot of that was paid for with blood in the streets.

Our owners are very crafty at playing one side against the other and are very good at it... After all, they've been practicing their craft for 223 years.

[Caretha]

70. I can't disagree

with a lot of what you have said, although I will protest that they did understand, and were aware of your particular points in regards to LGBT rights or whether child labor was wrong and many of the other things you pointed out, was that was 223 years ago.

Have you ever asked yourself why those very same things are not being debated in other democratic European socialist nations?

My problem with your protestations is that because it wasn't corrected at the beginning...eg, the founding of the United States of America, why the hell it shoud be "triangulated" now - 223 years later? It was certainly (these injustices) not approved nor ratified in the constitution of the US, why should the same excuse be used over and over again, and especially in the year 2010 that we need to "triangulate".

Do you not think it is way past time that we grew up and quit giving cover for any party that thinks this up for debate still?

edit - some of what I have written could have been put better - unfortunately I'm too tired and must go to work tomorrow and don't care to clarify. Please excuse me.

[MrScorpio]

73. When American socialists were effective at creating a modicum of equilibrium btw workers & owners

They were eventually marginalized and co-opted by the powers that be. There simply was no room for them.

In Europe, they became part of the establishment, hence our divergent paths.

I'm spite of my overly leftist ways, I realized that it's better to inhabit the left wing of an existing party in power than to take up arms with people who will be perpetually excluded.

So, I'm a Democrat.

And I'm a Democrat, because I understand that things need to get fixed and sometimes re-fixed, we're just the ones to do it.

We have a penchant for doing the right thing in this country, ONLY when it's the last possible choice that we have. Usually, kicking and screaming.

THAT is the American way.

[Ikonoklast]

8. Which only applied to white, male landowners.

Females, slaves, and poor whites need not apply.

[MilesColtrane]

21. The founders were well read, but basically they were a bunch of rich slave owners...

who were sick of paying taxes.

(That was only sort of tongue in cheek.)

[EFerrari]

23. Sure, and agreed. But the docs still say what they say.

:)

[Caretha]

59. The constitution was a work of art

and very hard hard work for those that participated in creating it. These were men that were educated, and very international. They had studied government, THEY HAD STUDIED HISTORY, and they were the children and grandchildren of the "Renaissance". They knew what they were doing and performed articulate acts of balancing on a tight rope in order to put together a government that couldn't be overcome by the greedy and powerful.

The diplomacy and backroom arm twisting, and trade offs that were made by these men, the "chess games" that they played were incredible. Pick up a fucking few books - read - learn and don't make any more assine statements until you do.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grantcart]

42. At the time of its issue the DOI had only 30% popular support

[Naturyl]

51. But that's not left-liberalism, it's neoliberalism

Which is an entirely different thing.

America is very much neoliberal, but not left-liberal at all.

[MellowDem]

79. Authoritarian Puritan influence?

Puritans were, in many ways, liberal for their day, and very anti-authoritarian at that. The US was founded on Enlightenment principles, not all of which would be described as "liberal" today.

The problem for the US has never been authoritarianism. From the beginning there was some sort of limited democracy. But the problem has always been one of class warfare and an incredibly diverse (and easily divided) populace.

[tblue37]

3. When asked about specific policy positions, without those

positions being identified as conservative or liberal, and without their being associated with a particular party or person, the liberal policy positions consistently poll much higher than the conservative ones. It's not that Americans are conservative, but that they are ill-informed and easily manipulated by propaganda. Since the right wing owns the mass delivery systems for most information, the conservative side gets the propaganda support.

For example, Americans may say they hate "socialism," but when asked about specific socialistic policies (Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, etc.), they are all for them.

[MrScorpio]

9. Cognitive dissonance has always had a place in our collective psyche

This isn't a new thing either.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

11. While true, that doesn't come CLOSE to refuting tblue37's point.

Me thinks your theory isn't standing up to the most basic scrutiny.

[MrScorpio]

13. Although I'm loathed to say it...

But tblue37's question is pretty much an admission that we have too many idiots running around this country with voter registration cards.

While that is true, the deeper problem is that too many people have an anathema to working for an unconditional communitarian goal. Most of these people will tell you that they're hard working, yes. But they love to pick winners and losers. They always see themselves as the winners and they love to make anyone who is not like them into the losers.

For the most part, Americans look at the social contract as CONDITIONAL, with a set of contrarian and restricted set of conditions.

This is why we have have all of these limits on something like healthcare... Americans are loath to give up the provision that somebody should be able to make money off of it.

If we REALLY felt the way that tblue37 had suggested, then we would have had complete single payer in the country eons ago.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

25. The reason we don't have single payer is because anytime anyone comes CLOSE to suggesting single ..

... payer, the big monied interest start their advertising campaigns to whip up a minpority of the public to give cover to a handful of snakes in congress and, in the most recent case, the WH.

The most recent public option had strong support - at the very least, a majority of those polled and closer to 70% depending how you sliced it or presented it.

That's not conservative values.

What IS conservative values is the big monied interests who whipped up a small majority to provide cover for a boat load of boutght and paid for politicians (including the WH) to protect the insurance industry. They did it with acror Ronald Reagan and his "free" anti-socialized medicine albums in the 50s and they did it again with the teabaggers on tour in 2009.

[MrScorpio]

28. If America was really liberal, no one would believe in any of that crap

And the health industry wouldn't have succeeded in pulling it.

There is too much money at stake and even if we have some kind of socialized medicine in this country, we are still impelled to attach some out of pocket price to it, with deductibles and private insurance, rather than make it a universal right.

Most Americans believe that the insurance companies and Big Health are ENTITLED to that money... Simply because they believe that it's the "American Way". Your cover all slogan to protect private interests.

Besides, if healthcare was universal right, then Americans would be up in arms because the "unworthy" would have access to it.

In spite of the what the majority says that it wants, it can never have it, because those with money will always be happy to exploit that basic flaw in their reasoning.

[EFerrari]

20. Of course they do. Because our species is not suicidal.

The "I got mine, F you" strategy would have killed us off by now.

[BootinUp]

4. additional point

There is always a backlash when trying to change directions like on regulation, tax policy, civil rights, whatever.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. I disagree. In one breath you say we are a right-leaning country and the ...

..... other breath you say we are too stupid to realize our socialistic nature regarding roads and water versus taxes.

I think the majority of americans WANT public education, social security, clean water, student loans, higher education access etc. etc. They're just too ignorant to realize how socialistic all those things are.

It's a marketing problem. Unfortunately the "other side" is so much better funded and will resort to wedge issues.

[NNN0LHI]

15. Here is what some of us keep forgetting though

The majority of Americans DO WANT public education, social security, clean water, student loans, higher education access etc. etc. They just don't want the same things for anyone else. They want those things just for themselves and their immediate family.

And they are well aware how socialistic all those things are. They don't care.

Don

[Uzybone]

22. ding ding ding

They want those things, they just don't want to pay taxes (or make any sacrifice) so others can have them too.

[MrScorpio]

24. Bingo!

Frankly, how anything gets done in America with that mindset is mystery for the ages.

[ProfessorGAC]

72. Good Post Don!

The problem is more fundamental than Liberal or Conservative. The issues are rooted in Malovian needs to achieve comfort and luxury before self-actualization.

This is well-established social psychology. Societies can't move pass the stage of needs of the preponderance of its population. If people are still in "need" of further comfort and luxury, they will not achieve the self-actualization needed to see the grand societal picture.

And, that point may never be achieved in a country with more than 300 million people.
GAC

[MrScorpio]

74. Excellent point

A perfect example of why the skewed distribution of wealth is so very problematic.

Unless we can solve that very problem, social and political equilibrium will be very much unattainable.

[ProfessorGAC]

78. Maslowe Was Right

It's really that simple. AM was a very astutue observer and analyst of the human condition. Everything he wrote has turned out to remarkable accurate and consistent.

And, just like he said, each stage requires a higher standard of achievement to fulfill.

If one is at the need level of having enough to eat, the NEED is satisfied as soon as one isn't regularly hungry. A pretty low standard.

If one seeks safety and comfort, the need is met as soon as one has somewhere to sleep other than in a cave or on the beach in a storm, or in the wild with wolves and bears. A pretty easy to meet standard of achievement. All i need is a small room to live in, and that need is met.

Now, comfort: What is comfort? Well, to me it could be one thing and to someone else, a completely different standard. But, it's also a moving target. I could be what you or someone else calls comfort, but i could decide i'm not quite comfortable enough. It's a much more fluid standard, so with 300 million people we could have 300 million definitions, and then 5 years later, even if everyone was "more comfortable" we could STILL have 300 million definitions.

Luxury is even more so. I like watches. I've got 2 very nice watches. I've got three nice cars. Some people might say i've got my luxury need met. In fact, i'd be prone to agree. But, some people would define luxury as three BMW's. Or three Mercedes. Or the watches need to be Rolex and Tag Heuer. To someone else, luxury isn't until one has a limo and a driver or a Ferrari or a Rolex with diamond bezel. So, now we're even more fluid and the standard is even higher and harder to reach.

Maslowe suggested that it was unlikely that more than 5% of a population would actually achieve self-actualization, less than 20% would ever even try.

Given that, we need to focus our message on where people actually live and what THEY believe they need. Messaging an ideal is unlikely to work. I just don't thing people work that way.
GAC

[MrScorpio]

81. I've always wondered about the true extent of wealth in this country

My wife and I lived quite comfortably on $45,000 a year. I had a house and two cars. Our fridge was always full and we went out to eat. We went out to the movies. Our clothes were nice.

These days, we're making due with less... A lot less. But still, our basic needs; food, shelter and so on are still provided for. We even have high speed net access.

However, according to every standard, we're living way below the poverty line.

And yet we have a small percentage of people in this country who are so wealthy, the aggregate of what they own is more than the rest of us put together. Considering the fact that paltry amount of what I earn still takes care of out basics, plus a little more, what the wealthy have in this country is staggering.

The massively lop-sided amount of wealth is causing most people to make due with whatever paltry amount of wealth that they have and suffer because of the fact that they don't have access to it.

It costs much more to live in this country, if you're poor, than if you're rich. At this stage even a lot of the basics are unattainable to the many, because the wealthy are s0 much wealthier than they've ever been. Where do you think that the Teabaggerati came from? Too bad that they have absolutely no clue how to really fix their dilemma.

Eventually, even in America, people are going to start focusing on who's really fucking them over, instead of falling once again for the oky-doke.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillyT]

26. Except For The Fact That FDR Got 4 Terms, And Dems Held The Congress For 40 Years...

you are absolutely right.

:banghead:

:beer:

:smoke:

[MrScorpio]

29. A global depression has a way of convincing people of the error of their ways.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. The masses of working people who voted for FDR

were not guilty of 'errors in their ways'. What a thing to suggest, more faith based language, so sick of it I could vomit. It is always used to degrade and to dismiss, never to uplift.
Those starving workers, they repented from the error of their ways! What a pile of lycra stretch crap.

[MrScorpio]

37. Don't forget that FDR was elected in the first place because of Rule Two

When the Roaring Twenties were going on, fun was the order of the day.

Then Democrats had to be enlisted to pick up the pieces.

If America was responsible and uplifting in the first place, our history would have been very different indeed.

[lelgt60]

84. The Dems held congress for 40 years, but they were NOT progressive Dems

A significant block was the southern Dem racists. Calling yourself a Democrat was necessary to get elected.

[zipplewrath]

27. Yes, it is

Which is why they scream that they don't want government health care, and that we should keep our hands off of their medicare. The ask for lower deficits, and balanced budgets, and then re-elect Bush. The scream about entitlements, and then complain that there wasn't a COLA for SS this year. They crow about "values" and then elect a thief as govenor of Florida.

They're liberals, they just don't want to admit it.

[MrScorpio]

30. Cognitive dissonance, baby!

It's as American as Cherry Pie

[suzie]

71. Government healthcare means to Americans that they'd have to share their

health care with "the unworthy" just as Mr. Scorpio says. They understand exactly what they mean when they say "keep your hands off my Medicare."

They don't see Medicare as causing them to share their personal access to health care with "the unworthy" class.

[Dappleganger]

32. IMO the biggest thing we should concentrate on is getting religion

and religious issues OUT of politics. That in itself would make a huge difference in the political field.

[MrScorpio]

33. You'd think that that would be easy, with a 1st Amendment and all

But, I swear to you that I've ran into people who believe with all their hearts that this is a Christian country and that the Ten Commandments trumps the Bill of rights.

Separating religion and politics in this country is about as easy as it is to separate two combines gases from each other.

[highprincipleswork]

36. Born through Revolution

Spin it the way you want, as you undoubtedly are, and we'll spin it how we see it.

The brilliance of all the original documents, and why they have been so revered for so long, is in their Liberalism. That's pretty much what sets them apart.

Beating in the heart of all those who study American history and/or believe in this country is a core of decidedly "Liberal" beliefs. That's what I believe and what I see and what I have always experienced. That seems also to be what the polls show, when they are worded in a way that lets people think for themselves. For instance, polls that show that most people simply aren't aware of the amount of income disparity that exists here and think the reality of our system is actually closer to Scandinavian countries than it really is, and they would prefer it to be even a little bit more income-neutral.

It's when the unfettered quest for money and a later notion of "the American dream" comes in that things get a little bit cloudier and murkier.

The founding fathers were not perfect, by any means, but I think it's a stretch to see them, their doctrines, and the Revolutionary War as anything less than, well, revolutionary.

All those who argue the alternate point would probably have been Tories back in the day, that my humble opinion. Flame on, as they say.

[MrScorpio]

38. We definitely love to glad hand ourselves...

Hey, it's only natural, everyone does it.

But the fact is, that in order for this country to make left turns, we always have to avoid going over a cliff on the right hand side.

It's self-presevation.

[HughMoran]

39. Presently 40% conservative, 40% moderate & 20% liberal

Nobody loves the nerds. :P

[MrScorpio]

40. Noooobody!

It's a miracle if we can get our way at all in this country.

And it's usually after clean up somebody else's fuck ups.

[Naturyl]

52. And America's "moderate" is the world's right wing.

Our left is their center.

[HughMoran]

54. We on the left haven't been effective in changing minds

I thought we made some progress through 2008, but that seems to be gone. My state is red again and I hate it.

[Naturyl]

55. We haven't shown any cajones, as usual.

Yet again, we failed put a solid, spirited argument in front of people. Instead we just agreed to all right-wing views and said "that, but nicer and gentler, with sugar on top."

[socialist_n_TN]

77. 40% moderates plus 20% liberal...............

equals 60% WHO HOLD LIBERAL POSITIONS ON ISSUES. The moderates ARE liberal. They just don't admit to it.

[HughMoran]

83. Well, they can be convinced to vote Democratic up to say 60%

Many are conservatives in disguise as well.

We do need to have moderates on our side.

[librechik]

41. I disagree. Every issues poll indicates the people of the US are decidedly liberal.

But we won't vote for liberals. Therefore we are a bunch of free spirits being ruled over by a bunch of fascist churchladies with steel toed boots. Until we decide to quit punching hippies and start voting for them, we are doomed to have half of us in jail for smoking reefer and the other half unemployed.

[MrScorpio]

44. Clearly, you've demonstrated the dichotomy between their words and their actions

Talk is cheap... And they simply refuse to pony up the bill.

[leftstreet]

80. Or, the 'liberal' politicians have demonstrated they're not really leftists

:shrug:

[treestar]

43. K&R

[Bucky]

45. Is this the Anger Stage or the Bargaining Stage you're in?

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

46. right leaning = do what i want so i can get rich

Just thought I'd add that clarification for those upstream who don't get seem to get that one caveat. Yes, they will be quite reasonable when you get them in a mood where they acknowledge they're not going to get rich and they're scared of how to pay for Sally's braces and wondering when they're going to die if they keep breathing in that crap air.

But like God and Apple Pie, the Golden Boys fuel them full of American fool's gold, over and over, and they go for it every time.

[MrScorpio]

47. They fall for it like suckers

And then we have to pull their faces from the toilet bowls and tuck them into bed.


It's our civic duty as lefties.

[Marr]

49. American democracy is mostly about protecting capital. We're like Hanoverian England.

We've got a very old republic, and our Constitution shows it. It's mostly set up to protect capital from the filthy masses, which was the prevailing idea back when it was written.

Our government isn't primarily designed to respond to the will of the people. The only times it has done so was in defense of capital. That is to say, things like the New Deal were largely meant to maintain the status-quo at a time when the populace was so fed up that the choice was between compromising with the filthy masses and losing the whole show. *Then* our government can be pretty responsive to popular opinion.

Anyway, I think that largely accounts for the seemingly schizoid gulf between popular opinion and the tone of the system in general, from government to media.

[Naturyl]

50. You are correct.

To make progress, we first have to acknowledge reality, and this is part of it. America is not left or liberal. I don't care what some contrived poll says, we just aren't. This is a center-right country, especially since Reagan. That's the political reality we have to work within.

[JuniperLea]

53. Amen, Brother Mr. Scorpio!

It's especially hard for me, having been born and raised in California, to grasp the idea that not all states vote a straight Democratic ticket like my state just did. We pride ourselves as the "Left Coast" and the place from whence all good things emanate:D

In looking at the final poll numbers, I realized that there are a lot of very different people, states, and communities across the nation... and it makes me see with more clarity the need to govern from the center. I hate it, but it's only fair.

Yes, we are political nerds. It could be worse!

[baldguy]

56. America is not a conservative country, either.

Remember all those Tea Baggers protesting with signs saying "HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE!" and "DON'T TOUCH MY SOCIAL SECURITY!" and crying about the govt "take over" of govt programs?

We've had two solid years of "conservatives" protesting FOR these socialist programs, fearing that Obama would trash them.

And remember also that 75% of the people wanted single payer for HCR. And more than half support gay marriage.

All the evidence points to the American people being slightly left-of-center, but more than a little disinterested and therefor disheartened in the political process. That's by design.

[Crystal Clarity]

57. Well said MrScorpio

K and R :applause:

[bvar22]

61. Then HOW do you explain Issues Oriented Polls like these?

Here is what the MAJORITY of Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) want from OUR government!

In recent polls 2005!!!) by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

Between 60% - 75% of ALL Americans (Democrats & Republicans) supported a Public Option Option.

There is a definite disconnect between What the People want, and what is being offered by either political party.

Using your own argument, America WAS a Liberal Country in 2006 and 2008 when the electorate REJECTED conservatism, but suddenly turned conservative in 2010? :shrug:

The GOP made progress NOT because America is conservative, but because the Democrats did NOT deliver.

[MrScorpio]

68. As I said before, talk is cheap.

But when it comes time for the rubber to meet the road, those kinds of ideals are rarely fully manifested.

What happens is that all of that good stuff start becoming "conditional" and the caveats are left conveniently absent.

- "Health care for everyone... except for those darned illegals."

_ "I'd love for the minimum wage to get raised... Except my boss tells me that he may have to let me go if that ever happens."

- "Sure we should all pay our fare share in taxes... But the government is just going to take my hard earned money and give it to lazy people/$250,000 is NOT really rich."

- "Sure the deficit needs to be reduced... But America needs to be strong against our enemies/I earn my keep building those weapons systems."

- "We ought to protect the environment.. But I hate it when the price of gas goes up for my low milage vehicle that I had every right to purchase.

- See above

- "Corporate offshoring of jobs is bad, true... But I'm going to vote for the Republican anyway, because he's the only one looking out for business interests."


The right gives everyone a long leash on their collars, just long enough so they can run around the yard and not beyond.

[socialist_n_TN]

76. What's interesting about these figures.............

is that the percentage of people who believe in these "liberal" POSITIONS almost EXACTLY mirror the number of people who self style themselves as liberal AND moderates.

IOW, it looks like, WHEN IT COMES TO POSITIONS, 60%+ of the country holds liberal positions, NO MATTER WHAT THEY CALL THEIR POLITICS.

[jgraz]

85. Thank you. Saved me a post.

:patriot:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

62. K&R

[JackRiddler]

66. Center-left won the presidential elections in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 and almost certainly 2004.

[joshcryer]

67. I think you lack a historical perspective here.

[immune]

82. This is the best thread I've ever seen!

Thank you for laying it out so well.

K and R.

[NuttyFluffers]

86. uh, in comparison to most of the world's history, we very much are.

we are a very liberal governmental experiment.

people keep pointing to Western Europe in the last 50 years. but c'mon, that's a fluke in comparison to the two world wars, decaying empires, etc. and that's just HALF of Europe. even Europe under the Iron Curtain was heavily totalitarian; liberal, yes -- libertarian, no. and this is to speak of nothing of the age of decaying Eastern Europe empires. and that's like the most "liberal" continent people use as an example. i can assure you Africa, Asia, and S. America (unfortunately with plenty of our meddling) are chock-a-bloc with more conservative and/or authoritarian/totalitarian governments (and cultures).

we've done horrible, horrible things in our history to be sure. however, let's retain some geographical, cultural, and historical perspective. it's been a wild 400 years within the context of a changing world. we've been naughty, oh yes! but believe me, the rest of the world has been at least as vicious.

edit: my favorite part about this is, unlike most other countries in the world, we air out our skeletons from our closet. you'll be surprised how often other countries prefer not to talk about "unpleasant past activities," even to this day. everyone may know America's dish, but it scares them when an American can cite back dish on their own country -- and often even catch them off-guard with stuff they never knew. ;)

[BlueMTexpat]

87. Anyone who doubts what you are saying should read

"A Peoples History of the United States: 1492 - Present" by Howard Zinn. It should be required reading for every single American, IMO.

The ideas in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights were recycled from those of - mostly - 18th-century European philosophers, many of them French. But the way those ideas have been implemented has been in a corporate-aristocrat-friendly manner so that they have led most of us right back into the feudal era.

The only thing that's changed is the name. Now we call the feudal lords corporations. And lo and behold, our Supremes have indeed granted "personhood" to them.

[MrScorpio]

88. My point exactly

Thanks

[tomp]

89. funny, i thought progressive change only came when...

....progressive people took to the streets and threatened to overturn the entire system.

[Spazito]

90. Yep, tis true!

I have never been able to figure out why some actually believe the majority of the American public are left-leaning or liberal as all evidence points to the contrary, imo.

Too late to rec but never too late to kick!

[timtom]

91. Wow! Mr. Scorpio.

Superb post. And I say that as a fellow scorpio.

[Swamp Rat]

92. Our next 'rightward turn' will be one too many.