General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDemocrats Risk Losing a Generation to Cynical Libertarianism
Democrats Risk Losing a Generation to Cynical Libertarianism
"Too many Democrats have a smug assurance that the younger generations will automatically keep voting Democratic; that "demographic change" will condemn the GOP to permanent minority status in just a couple decades. But if the American people elect Democrats and then those Democrats keep cutting government services for the poor, elderly, and disadvantaged, while continuing to expand the military-industrial-security state and serving the Wall Street lobbyists that people were actually voting against, why are they going to bother to vote for Democrats again? "Because they have no other choice," right? I don't think that's going to work much longer.
The GOP is not stupid. There is a rising libertarian wing of that party, led by Sen. Rand Paul, which seeks to appeal to young voters who have given up on the promises of Democrats who talked the talk but didn't walk the walk -- young liberals who would seriously consider voting Republican if only the GOP would cut the military, end the domestic spying, the Wall Street bank bailouts, and the war on marijuana. Do you really think the Democrats have these pissed-off young voters locked in their column for life? Do you really think the Republicans are never going to try to rebrand their party to appeal to young Democrats who saw all their political hopes and dreams slip away under the weak, centrist, corporate-dominated, too-similar-to-Bush administration of Barack Obama? Think again.
It is time for a concerted movement to take back the Democratic Party from the centrist, corporate-driven "Republican lite" party it has become. It is time for the voters of America to have a real choice between conservative and liberal, not ultra-conservative and mildly, sanely conservative. ..."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/17/1216862/-Democrats-Risk-Losing-a-Generation-to-Cynical-Libertarianism
found this a while back:
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Democrat, I have not parted from those ways.
Coccydynia
(198 posts)Over the past five years? The lessons I've learned is actions speak louder than words, and the lesser of two results in lesser.
SugarShack
(1,635 posts)
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Name a Libertarian in this Country with Political clout who does not embrace State’s Rights over Fed Laws and is for a Woman’s Right to Choose... Anyone and I mean anyone who decodes to carry the Libertarian flag and run for office will be deeply freaking flawed and will quickly be exposed for what they are..Crapola!
G_j
(40,366 posts)Thomas Jefferson was thirty-three years old when he wrote the Declaration of Independence.
Youth often supplies the needed "naivety"
to accomplish great things.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)33 was one foot in the grave in the 1700-1800s. http://longevity.about.com/od/longevitystatsandnumbers/a/Longevity-Throughout-History.htm
People learned/experienced a lot more, a lot earlier in his time.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But numbers can be deceptive when you average the high with the low...
If you were a slave or poor bastard trying to eek out a living with your sweat then yes 33 was one foot in the grave...and there are a lot more of those people than the class that Jefferson was in...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)don't use averages; but rather median age of death. This smooths out the outliers and gives a better picture of life expectancy.
And, while it is true, most of the Founders lived to a ripe old age, their early life accomplishments (relative to day's ages) cannot be compared ... in the 1700s, most men were on their own at the age of about 13. So 33, in the 1700's, would be more comparable to about 50-ish, in terms of life expectancy, life's responsibilities and accomplishment expectation.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)down -- until the discovery of antibiotics.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The big switch was the adoption of the concept of Germs. While some doctors were pointing out that cleaning up before an operation reduced inflections as early as the 1830s, since they could not show WHY washing helped reduced infections, they ideas were rejected.
Pasteur's research on Germs finally forced the medical Community to embrace the concept of Germs and how to defeat them (1870s to 1880s). This lead to a lot of improvements in cleanness in the mid 1800s, which lead to reduction in disease. One of the greatest improvements in health was the replacement of the community tin cup, used for drinking water, but the then revolutionary idea of once used paper cups. The Expansion of Health Departments starting with the Civil War and the desire to reduce disease occurred at the same time as the Medical and Health Communities embraced the concept of germs as the cause of disease.
Thus filtering of water to filter out all of the improprieties, mixing in Chlorine to kill off the germs, reduced urban death rates tremendously. Health Departments insistence on cleanness and the adoption, first by the States and then the Federal Government of standards on food to reduce the spread of disease, dropped death rates again. Thus in the US Civil War, each side loss more men to disease then to combat, but when you get to the Bore War in the late 1890s, combat loses exceeded loses to disease due to the vast improvement in water treatment and food treatment. These improvements in the Military actually followed improvements in the Civilian urban community (Through the Military preceded such improvements in Rural areas AND in the slums).
Thus it was the general improvement in water and food in the late 1800s that dropped death rates, especially among children.
Give a personal example. The City of Pittsburgh had the worse water in the Country around 1900 and for that reason was the largest market for bottle water in the nation. The City then started a process to improve its water, it took them 30 years but by the time of the Great Depression the City of Pittsburgh had the best water (in terms of safe to drink) in the Country. My mother was born during that 30 year period and out of the five children her parents had, only two survived to adulthood. I suspect it was the water. Food was adequate, pollution was bad (this is the height of the Smoky City) but the water was the clean killer. Children are smaller and have weaker systems, what would just make an adult sick would kill a child and that is what the water did.
Just a comment that most of the improvement in life expectancy predate Antibiotics. It was the understanding that Germs were the killing and had to be killed that lead to most of the improvement in life expectancy (and the massive drop in infant mortality). It was showing people how to avoid making themselves sick and making sure their water and food was not killing them that improved life expectancy.
Antibiotics came at the end of the big jump in life expectancy. It did add to the above, but was a marginal improvement compared to the above (and may be secondary to the replacement of Horses by trucks as the main means of moving fright in urban areas, Horse left their manure all over the place and were a known source of germs. Many cities, in the inner war period in the US, made a huge push for businesses to replace horses with trucks, all but regulating horses out of urban areas as a source of power to move freight so that the roads would no longer be covered by Manure and the germs that come with manure). Just a Comment, antibiotics were the last big answer to reducing infant mortality and increasing life expectancy, but it was minor compared to the vast improvements done by Urban Health Departments (and the Federal Food and Drugs Administration and similar state organizations)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I have heard him credited for the drop in mortality due to hospital stays.
Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis[Note 1] (July 1, 1818 – August 13, 1865) (born Ignác Fülöp Semmelweis) was a Hungarian physician of German extraction.[1] [2] now known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures. Described as the "savior of mothers",[3] Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics.[3] Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal, with mortality at 10%–35%. Semmelweis postulated the theory of washing with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847[3] while working in Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives' wards. He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever.
Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
If you already know his story, I apologize for my post. But if you don't, you might find this story interesting. It is quite a sad story really.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)It is well known that people had practiced antiseptic policies for centuries before him, but the Medical Community dismissed them as old wives tales. An example of such anti-septic treatment is in Von Steuben's Blue book (the book Von Steuben wrote for George Washington on how the US Army was to fight in the Revolution). The "Blue Book" gets its name from the color of its cover and bindings. It was meant to be taken out in the field, thus was designed to be roughly handled.
In the "Blue Book" Von Steuben addressed the issue of sick soldiers. If one was sick, he went to the Hospital. After he was released, the mattress he laid on was opened up, the straw that had filled the Mattress was burned and the cloth boiled. This was written over 100 years before Pasteur, but it clearly shows they knew soldiers became sick after sleeping in a bed that sick soldiers had slept in, but if the mattress was boiled and the straw boiled, that did not happen.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Semmelweis is a tragic character. Far ahead of his time and proof that conservatism can cost lives. Doing things just because that is the way they have always been done is foolish.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Even the Russian Czar told the Austrian Emperor he was being to harsh on the former rebels. The Austrian crackdown was harsh and a mess (I suspect one of my own ancestors left Austria during that time period, he was to be the guest of honor at either a neck tie party or a shooting party, details are a lost in history for my Great Grand father decided it was time for a fast night time horse ride to Venice and a ship to America.).
Now, my ancestor trip may have been after 1848, but the tensions in Austria was still high for decades afterward. For example the decision to tear down the old walls of Vienna in the late 1800s had more to due making sure another 1848 revolution would NOT re-incur the to "open up the city". The Walls kept enemy armies out, but that can also include any army the Austrian Government wanted to sent to Vienna to put down a revolt. France under Napoleon III did the same thing to Paris, wide streets were built so Cannon could have a clear area to fire on. The Paris of 1789 was a city of narrow lanes (I can not call them roads) easy to barricade, except for the area around the Notre Dame Cathedral, those old streets are gone from all of Paris. Now, Paris retained its walls till after WWI, but then removed them. The Walls had been a major problem for the Germans in the Franco-Prussian war of 1871 and WWI (Not that the Germans could not break through, but the cost to do so) but they had also kept out the French Army when it was sent in to suppress the Commune in 1871.
People tend to forget how bad the situation was in the 1840s. You had the last real famine in Europe for about five years prior to 1848. Food prices were sky high. The working class had a problem feeding themselves and their families. This was a situation very similar to France in 1789, a Revolution after several years of bad harvests. In 1848 the Revolution was contained, but the tensions that had lead up to it remained. Semmelweis seems to have been caught up it that tension AND the suppression done to contain those tensions (and the infighting among the elites on how to deal with those tensions, much like we are seeing in the Middle East, where the recent increases in the price of food is having its greatest effect today).
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)year. We believe he must have been a revolutionary. As soon as the Civil War broke out, he enlisted in a German unit of the Union army.
They were real democrats, true activists. Apparently we two come by it naturally. And that is just one side of the family. Lots of liberal democrats in my family way, way back.
lbrtbell
(2,389 posts)And today's young people aren't as stupid as people on this thread seem to think.
They're fully aware that they've been lied to by both parties, and smart enough to see what's wrong with our country.
The people who are stupid are the older people (politicians) who think this generation will mindlessly keep voting for people in both parties who are making things worse.
Like Generation X, this generation is smart enough to see that their future is being stolen, so they realize that their only alternative is self-reliance.
As a Gen X'er, I remember all my friends starting retirement accounts, because they feared Social Security wouldn't be around when they got old...or if it were, it wouldn't be sufficient to help them live comfortably. Well, guess which government program is being considered for chained CPI or whatever hidden cuts are being bandied about this week?
Gen X'ers weren't stupid, and neither are the millennials. They see what's happening, and truth breeds cynicism.
The only answer, as propsed upthread, is for the Democratic wing of the Democratic party to take the party back. The outpouring of votes for Obama in 2008 is proof that young people will gladly vote for true Democratic values. To hold those young people, our elected Democrats need to stick to those values.
But when Democrats allow things like excessive NSA spying, Obamacare (which is making employers hire part-time workers instead of full-time ones) instead of single-payer, the siren call of libertarianism starts to sound pretty good. Yes, we all know that libertarianism isn't all it's cracked up to be, but desperation and disappointment will drive people into some pretty dark corners. It's sort of like being caught in a storm, and the only shelter is a sewer; it may be a sewer, but at least you're out of the storm for a while.
We need real Democrats in office, not corporatist neoliberals. Real Democrats inspire loyalty, not disappointment.
G_j
(40,366 posts)you make a good point about life spans back then.
Coccydynia
(198 posts)To whom you lied is naïveté.
haele
(12,640 posts)There was no "teen age" in the 18th century; by 14, a "boy" may still have been a boy, but he was expected to be getting training for a trade or getting ready to go into University. Thomas Jefferson was highly educated early on; he spoke 3 languages by the age of nine, entered William and Mary at the age of 16, graduated and took the Virgina bar and becoming a lawyer by the age of 21.
He graduated University ready to become a Lawyer at the same age most modern children who are thinking of Law or Politics for their major are just starting their own undergraduate work.
Youth and Adult were interchangable by the time you were 16 or 17; if living at home under the auspices of Mom and Dad or living off someone else in the process of being trained for an adult career, you were a youth; if you had a job that supported you or if you were married - basically, if you were in the position to maintain your own home and livelyhood, you were an adult.
So, no; Jefferson was not young and naive at 33, any more than most 40 - 45 year olds are now-a-days. There's the age equivilency.
Haele
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)factors in the life expectancy, the age equivilency would be more like 50-60ish, now a days.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)All you had to do was work with another lawyer who would show you want was expected of a lawyer AND sponsor the candidate for law to the local bar. This was true till quite recently. William Jennings Bryan, in the 1880s after he had married his wife, told her to take a few classes from a law school, but sponsored her as an attorney himself to the local bar (and she was admitted, one of the few lawyers of that time period with a Collage Education, and some class work in law, in this she joined her Husband, who also had collage but did not attend a law school). When I started to practice law in the 1990s, in my county we still had one lawyer who did NOT graduate from a law school (he had attended and then dropped out, he disliked how the teacher was teaching the class), instead he was admitted as someone who had read for the law. He did this in the 1950s and whenever he retired, so did the last lawyer who did not go to law school.
As to your statement that the terms "Youth and Adult were interchangeable by the time you were 16 or 17: was NOT correct. Under the law till the 1970s, 21 was the age the law PRESUMED you were an adult. If you were below 21, you were legally presumed to be a child under the care, control and supervision of someone else (Mostly your parent). This had been the law since the middle ages and no one changed it, even in the colonial period.
In fact during the 1700s and 1800s, you could NOT enlist in the Military till you were 21 unless your parents agreed to your enlistment OR you could convince the recruiter you were no longer under the care, control or supervision of your parents, due to the acts of your parents (i.e. running away from home did not show a lack of Care, Control or Supervision by your parents, it requires some ACT by your parents that they were no longer exercising "Care, Control or Supervision" over you).
Once enlisted, if you were under 21, you could NOT be shipped overseas. You could fight within the US Borders (as in the Civil War) but not overseas. In fact during the Draft of WWI, you had to be over 21 to be drafted till September 1918 when Congress dropped it to 18 (During WWII the draft was always age 18).
If you were under age 21, living at your parent's home, AND earning money you were still NOT viewed as an adult, by law you were still a minor (Even through you could marry at age 12 without your parent's permission, you just could not move out of their home, again the law since the middle ages).
As to learning three languages, that is easier then you think. We tend to remember our high school foreign language courses. In many ways by the time we are in High School it is really late to learn another language (the best time is before age five). When they do MRIs of people brains, those people who learn a language before age five, use a different part of the brain when they are speaking or reading that language then if they were using a language learned after age five. Given the limited number of books then in print, it was often the only way to read up on a subject was to read it is the language it was first published in. Thus you had a lot of books, even in America, published in foreign languages (Greek, Latin and French were the three big languages of the time period, people who had access to books had books in all three languages and to read them you had to learn the language). It appears, Jefferson was exposed to all three before he was five and thus learned them as he learned English. If exposed to a language it is easy to learn.
As to going to William and Mary at age 16, I think he was a little old. Collages before the mid 1800s were NOT the Collages of today. They were more like high schools (in fact when High Schools were invented in the mid 1800s, Collages had to reinvent themselves, for what they had been teaching was by the mid 1800 being taught in High Schools). Thus William and Mary was more like a High School (in terms of Education) then a modern Collage, through to be accurate, since it was only taking the elite of society it was something in between modern High Schools and Modern Collages.
Sorry, I admire Jefferson for what he did, but his educational achievements reflect his background more then what he could do himself (and that included his passing the Bar). On the other hand his achievements, such as writing the Declaration of Independence is his own product and reflects what he himself could do.
By the way, no one looked to Jefferson for Legal Advice, he was NOT considered a Great Lawyer (appears to have become a Lawyer for the prestige of being one, not for any desire to practice law). My comments is that most people were about the same in the 1700s as today. One of my favorite Statistics is the one involving the average age of first marriage. I first ran across it in the 1970s and saw it again since 2000. The problem is the US Census bureau has been keep track of ages at first marriages since the 1890 Census but no one uses that start date. If they want to show age of marriages is increasing, they start in 1970, if they want to show a decline in age of first marriage, they stop in 1960. Why? Because the Statistic is like a smile, it is high on both ends (18901 and today) but low in the middle (1960-1970).
In simple terms, the age of first marriages DECLINED from 1890 till 1960, a slight increase was seen in 1970, but then a slow, but steady increase since 1970 (Males matched their age of first marriage by the early 1980s, women by the early 1990s and both has increased since). What we do know of marriages in the late 1800s, we appear to be at about the same level of age of first marriages. Another statistics is how many people are living together without being married. Those numbers appear to drop from the late 1890s till the 1960s. Since the 1960, the number of people living together without marriage have return to the numbers we were at in the late 1800s (This also reflected in the percentage of children born outside of wedlock, while the numbers per women is down, the percentage of such children to all children appears to run into the same numbers believed to have existed in the late 1800s).
This also reflects the period where the percentage of national income became more equal (1945-1970) and that reversal of that trend (1980 to present). i.e. as income became more equal, people tended to get married, as income became less equal, marriages decline. Please note I am talking about the share of money based on class not sex (i.e. as the top 1% got less of the share of total income, but the bottom 60% got more, you had more marriages, but as the percentage of total income increases for the top 1%, but goes down for everyone else, the number of marriages decline).
In many ways we are slowly returning to the norms of the late 1800s. People complain that the GOP wants us to return to the 1950s, most people would be happy with the 1950s, most people had a larger percentage of the GDP in the 1950s then they do today. On the other hand, as we return to the economic norms of the late 1800s, most people will have a much lower percentage of GDP then they had in the 1950s and in many ways today. Yes, today we have cars and Computers, instead of horse drawn wagons and a pencils, but we live among others, which is characteristics of people and it is the fairness among the group as a whole that makes them content not the latest bells and whistles.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Lincoln was another one with little formal education who read the law and became a decent attorney despite having not a single official degree.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)I'd bet even middle-aged discouraged Democrats would smile.
Coccydynia
(198 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)...and then they'd HAVE to do some Democratic Action.
Until then, it'll be more welfare for Wall Street and wars without end for power and profit.
PS: A most hearty welcome to DU, Coccydynia!
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Coccydynia
(198 posts)And I believe you are correct that the current incarnation of the Democratic Party. I just don't understand why.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)point, counterpoint:
Cynical Anarcho-Libertarians Risk Losing a Generation to Cynical Libertarians
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/18/1216953/-Cynical-Anarcho-Libertarians-Risk-Losing-a-Generation-to-Cynical-Libertarians
That's a really good piece.
I have to say, this from the OP is bizarre:
It's about libertarians, but then it implies through queries that "young liberals" could consider voting Republicans and the likelihood it could happen through Republican rebranding.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Are you saying that libertarian does not equal Liberal ... and progressive libertarian does not equal Liberal?
Imagine that?
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)It's absolutely correct, and I've met a number of these young people myself who, for those very reasons, have joined up with the Paul camp and despise Democrats as phony liars. You can argue the need for business regulation with them till you're blue in the face but they won't hear you, they see our party as wanting to control their lives, and regulation as an extension of that Democratic character flaw to the business community. They're being misinformed, of course, by people claiming to be for liberty but actually schilling for corporate interests, but we're losing this debate because our party supports and elects its own corporate liars who couldn't care less about most of us.
Marijuana prohibition is a much bigger issue to these people than many Democrats realize, and it should be, it criminalizes hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and causes millions more to view law enforcement and government in general as the enemy. The big-brother surveillance doesn't help, either, at all.
Edited to add: I neglected to include militarism. Many of these youth see our wars for what they are, rich people using youth to serve their interests. The anti-militarism of the Paul camp is right on and Democrats, sadly, have fallen in line with the military-industrial complex. That's huge.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)things we all see as being Liberal, so, it's a very odd statement. I mean, "Republican if only the GOP would cut the military, end the domestic spying, the Wall Street bank bailouts, and the war on marijuana." basically, they would vote GOP if they acted like real democrats, kinda the reverse of how the Democratic party is acting these days.
mick063
(2,424 posts)Is a strong political theme now days.
This article nails it. If government fails to meet the basic needs of the population and governs for an exclusive, powerful minority, then a growing number will join the "I hate government" bandwagon.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)but I'm curious to know why anyone thinks liberals are embracing it?
The New Republic's Julia Ioffe has a big profile with quite the cover photo on 2016 hopeful and Tea Party favorite Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) that went online Monday.
Ioffe reports on a little publicized remark Paul made at Simmons College, a historically black college in Louisville, where Paul sat with students and professors.
"I'm not a firm believer in democracy," he said in April. "It gave us Jim Crow."
Here's the quote in its full context:
And rather than try to prove that the Republican Party had been good to blacks once upon a time, he focused on how the Republican Party could be good to them today. He talked about decriminalizing drug offenses and getting rid of the mandatory sentencing minimums that put so many young black men in jail. He talked about fixing the local school system, about not abolishing Pell grants “as long as it’s in the context of spending what you have.” To approving nods, he talked about how urban renewal had really meant “urban destruction” and about how “they tore down a lot of black businesses so people would go to white stores.” He found that this crowd, if not totally convinced, was receptive. Though he would still not give them a definitive answer on his position on the Civil Rights Act, he did say that he believed federal intervention had been justified. “I’m not a firm believer in democracy,” he explained. “It gave us Jim Crow."
In 2010 Paul controversially said that he oppossed certain aspects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, specifically the provision that prohibits private businesses from excluding anyone on the basis of race. He has since backed away from this comment.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rand-paul-im-not-firm-believer-in-democracy
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Jim Crow was a last-ditch attempt by whites to prevent democracy. It's not democracy unless everyone participates.
What a 
!
radicalliberal
(907 posts)That's because he's just another conniving politician (of which there are many in both parties, of course). He also absurdly ties the Ku Klux Klan with today's Democratic Party. He's made the sort of intellectually dishonest claims that Limbaugh and others have made in recent years about who supported and who didn't support civil rights in the 1950s and the 1960s. I've heard it before: conservatives taking credit for the past good deeds of liberals. Just another example of the "Big Lie" technique. Goebbels would be embarrassed by the shamelessness of it all.
By the way, there were Republicans who supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, almost to an individual, they were the so-called "Rockefeller Republicans" -- who were despised by people such as William Buckley, Phyllis Schafly, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Rand Paul's father.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)is thinking that this is the whole point of the exercise that we are witnessing ... the complete erosion of confidence in ALL governmental institutions, the Congress, the Courts and, now, the Executive Office.
It would not surprise me one bit if a (heavily corporate financed) candidate in 2016, ran on the platform of eliminating political parties, and giving folks everything mentioned in the OP ... "But oh, yeah - I'm gonna have to eliminate Congress and the judiciary to do it ... Whose with me!"
Andy823
(11,495 posts)Those who are jumping on the "I hate government bandwagon"? Don't get me wrong I agree there is a push towards that bandwagon, but who do these people end up voting for since we all know republicans say they hate big government, yet they want to take away right for women and tell them what they can or can't do with their own bodies. The GOP will always be the ones promoting war, they are against immigration reform, they do not want legalizes marijuana, etc.
Then we have the likes of Rand Paul, who is just another nutty teabagger who wants to be president, but really doesn't seem to believe in equal rights for people, no help for those in need, get rid of all the government programs that do help, etc.
I also agree that democrats really need to make some serious changes when it comes to backing the corporate agenda. So where will these people go?
I know the old "best of two evils" is getting old, what are the alternatives?
mick063
(2,424 posts)you tune in to Fox and similar media because they at least partially, reinforce such a perspective.
This leads to the rationalization and eventual acceptance of privatization. For many, who reflect consistent polling that the economy is top priority, the lesser of two evils is neutering government at the expense of desired agendas or other social issues that can be addressed later.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)people toward libertarianism. The surveillance has been practiced under both Republican and Democratic presidents. Young people are on Facebook. They are really into the internet, and, even more than those of us who are older, they value free expression without surveillance on the internet. I have a sense that the scope, intrusiveness and meaning of the surveillance has not yet sunk in for young, apolitical internet users.
But I do know that one of my daughters was advised that in her profession she should stay away from Facebook. And she is not in intelligence of the military.
So, for some professionals, things like Facebook are anathema. Too much snooping, too little privacy.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)n/t
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)
tblue
(16,350 posts)But I hope the Democratic Party finds its soul again soon.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)
toddaa
(2,518 posts)The hatred against anarchism on DU gets really ugly when its directed towards OWS, which is one of the most significant nonviolent anarchist actions in recent years. It threatens the authoritarian progressives, who are willing to let the erosion of civil and economic liberties continue, as long as there's a (D) in charge. The authoritarian progressives don't want well informed, critical thinking citizens. To borrow from George Carlin, the authoritarian progressives only want obedient voters.
If you believe "anarchism == hatred of government", I can dismiss you as being completely ignorant of anarchism. That goes for the idiotic morons in the right and the authoritarian progressives on the left. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of anarchism, but none of them ever come from anyone who believes "anarchism == hatred of government".
Johonny
(20,819 posts)Just about all the young people < 30 yrs old in California I meet claim to be Libertarian. They post all the time about Rand Paul and Ron Paul. These are people working low paying jobs that see tax cuts as their only chance at a raise, they see tax breaks going to the rich and assume that is how you become rich, they see the government as something that wastes money in foreign wars but does not care about the individual person and their rights, and of course they all hate the war on drugs.
I really think a Libertarian has a chance in 2016 or 2020 to take the Republican nomination. Which might be a good thing for the Democratic party because it seems like forever since it has been able to frame its administration around trying to get government to work for people...
allin99
(894 posts)i hope they DO become a challange to the 2 big parties. They won't win but at least someone will challenge the NSA, etc.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)party and young people will not be tempted by a fourth party. Right now the Dem Party is being controlled by that Third Party. It was pretty clever of them not to form their own party. They knew they would fail to win anything with those policies. But by attaching themselves to the Democratic Party they got Democratic votes. However over the past several elections it's been difficult for them to hide their presence in the party anymore and that knowledge lost the 2010 election when Independents and young people stayed home.
Which only goes to show what a failure the Third Way would be as a party on its own, which is why they are attached with their right wing policies, to the Dem Party. For now.
I don't believe Democrats should leave the party at all. I think they should stay and clear out the infiltrators and bring this party back to the people. The Corporations already have a party. Let them go join it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)100%
tblue
(16,350 posts)But these Third Way parasites are killing this party.
We need campaign finance reform so badly. We are going in the exact wrong direction on that front.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)so long as we have the campaign finance laws that are completely detached from We D. People, there will be no change.
As long as those with the money can "buy" congress they will, so it has to be stopped. Only problem is those who have the power to stop it are those in congress who are getting all the money!
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)being proposed by some members of our party. Such as 'SS had something to do with the deficit and needs to be 'fixed'. Or see who is always on board for more war eg. They're not really hard to identify.
Check out the history of this 'movement' and if you don't see anything right wingish about them, neo liberalish, then I guess they've been flying under the radar for too long and have succeeded in their goal to bring the Dem Party closer to the Right on policies, such as War and Austerity etc. And that means we have to do even more to remove them and their neo liberal policies from our party.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)"Third -Way": It came of a feeling by certain democratic party strategists that their traditional purpose of representing the poor and working class was not necessarily any longer viable in their view, and that they can become more viable, stronger, by being more corporate friendly. The feeling was: if they had a more solid majority/power base, they would be in a better position to "do good things". Push more liberal social issues and the like. By appealing to affluent social liberals they basically threw the working class under the bus, and they knew it, but their own shrewdness allowed them to rationalize this by thinking the poor and working class will have nowhere to go and thus vote democratic anyway. It's a damned shame.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)No more Clintons, no more Bushs. Elizabeth Warren 2016! A real Democrat.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Aside from polluting the party by moving rightward, they may have very well created the "Reagan Democrats" as well.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)traditional power base, & they'd get richer/more campaign contributions positioning themselves slightly to the left of the far right & participating in the feeding trough as the assets of the US were auctioned off.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Part of why they thought supporting their traditional base was no longer viable.
allin99
(894 posts)unless they are the infiltrators. Young dems, who got caught up in a cool campaign, not young R Paul crowd.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The infiltrators are right inside our party, many of them in powerful positions.
The young people and Independents who voted for our party in 2008, thought they were voting to get rid of Bush policies. When they did not see that happening, they stayed home in 2010 and we lost.
The base of the party did NOT stay home, a lie that is often told. Had they too done so, we would have lost the Senate too. But for how long will even part of the base, who are constantly insulted by their own party despite their continued, if reluctant at this point, support during elections, continue to remain loyal to a party that is more interested in 'bi-partisanship' and in promoting Republicans to powerful positions in our Government, than in their needs??
This is how shifts in politics happen. When a party betrays its principles and then 'blames' the people for not remaining silent when they realize they are not being represented.
Can you explain eg, why this President who we all support, less enthusiastically in the second election, once elected, rather than appointing Progressive Democrats to positions in his cabinet, continues to restore power to Republicans by appointing THEM to his cabinet? We did not vote for Republicans did we? Are there no Democrats? And should we be silent and happy about Republicans taking positions we intended for Democrats when we elected them?
allin99
(894 posts)they came out. (i actually agree with you on every part except for "infiltrators). the people chose in 08. I know they didn't realize who he was, but you can see that the base of the party is now backing extended surveillance. (64% of dems now say it's okay). That means it's the people creating this new dem to the right party b/c all the sudden base dems are backing this. So it's still the voters chose these people. Maybe unbeknowest to them but we see over and over again "i'm not happy but i'll vote for them anyway", we're all caught in this dilemma. Who the heck can i vote for, a D or an R, so the D's vote D no matter what the D party does. So i am in agreement with you, why did obama appoint republicans. He never intended not to, people read whatever they wanted to into the campaign, even when he clearly said i'll put republicans in my cabinent, said he wanted to go to war with pakistan, etc. So they're not infiltrators, we the D's put them in by putting someone in who put them in. Even though people didn't know they were doing it. So yes, in 2010 young people said, oh wait, i didn't sign up for this, but if obama is actively upping involvement in syria, extending surveillance, then it's not like the people by his side are sneaking in there. He's putting them their and following bush's policies all on his own.
So i am actually in full agreement with you.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
LuvNewcastle
(16,835 posts)If the Libertarians take over the GOP, the regular Republicans are going to be looking for a place to go. I can just see the DLCers welcoming those bastards into the Democratic Party. They're basically the same, after all. Democrats need to make sure that never happens. Let them go build their own loser party. They've been dragging us down long enough.
Greybnk48
(10,162 posts)the late 20's to 30 something crowd who are leaning toward horrid creatures like Rand Paul for the very reasons stated above.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Racist, bigoted neanderthals!
patrice
(47,992 posts)out of their dysfunctional situations.
When you add to this strong tendency to exploit losers political tactics that mitigate very purposefully and specifically AGAINST socialistic policies that could ameliorate the problems that keep people down, e.g. Missouri, we have a slave class that's into at least its 3rd generation at this point.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)The immigration issue will keep people home. So will the fact that so many people just view Washington DC, both republicans and democrats, as broken. Maybe this will be a good chance for a third party to surge a little but most likely it will just result in people staying home on voting day.
Skittles
(153,113 posts)people desperately want government to work for WE THE PEOPLE - imagine that
DCBob
(24,689 posts)allin99
(894 posts)unlike R's who want to intrude on everyone's life except for the banks.
flamingdem
(39,308 posts)hating Obama!
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)or in Europe.
8 years, of Clinton, 8 years of Bush, and 8 more years of Obama = 24 years of center right politics has destroyed our country.
antigop
(12,778 posts)become"
And that begins with an acknowledgement of how much damage the corporate Dems have caused.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)that is the price you pay for staying in the center. Short term gains, long term damage.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Marijuana legalization.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Legalization campaign as with Wash & Colo.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)pot now and then addicts, then you have already lost the battle. That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've seen on this thread.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)That post was a response to Patrice's which was talking about legalization of all drugs and using as many as they can. I don't agree with where she's coming from, it just doesn't look like any sizable constituency to me, and from what I could tell, the post you are calling dumb doesn't agree with it either. I think if you re-read Patrice's post you'll understand, my explanation is probably a little murky, just trying to help.
patrice
(47,992 posts)for cannabis and intolerance for people, addicts or NOT, who need our help to get their shit together so that they can get along under their own resources.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)What should you do if you are losing votes? Change policy to better represent your voters. Neither party seems to get that.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)on the old model, and old economic view of the world thus unable to adapt. Capitalism based on consumerism is starting to come to a close. When that happens the credit handed out to everyone will decrease in use. When that happens, people will discover that their purchasing power without credit has dropped because of low wages/salary. Handing out credit was a short term stopgap to alleviate the low wages/salary problems for workers of the world. Reality is coming and change will happen.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)from the GOPers and lose any benefit of getting out front.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for democrats to fund public education. Instead they let the republicans defund it and privatize it and the democrats themselves support the same policies that the republicans push on education. This is a deal breaker for me.
allin99
(894 posts)to pro extended serveillance. from 31% approving under GW to 64 under O. There is no reason for the dem party to change anything, the voters change FOR them.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The real reason for doing it is that it may save this country and all of us.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)be a political party or else it wants to lose.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)
Dustlawyer
(10,494 posts)Public funding of elections will stop the legal bribery of Fund Raising to millionaires, billionaires, and CEO's! Then we can have Representative Democracy again! Honk if you agree! Lol
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)octoberlib
(14,971 posts)denverbill
(11,489 posts)"If you are young and not liberal, you've got no heart. If you are old and not conservative, you've got no brain."
I always refer to that as the Ebenezer Scrooge syndrome. You go from being young, happy, generous, and caring, to old, grumpy, miserly, and antipathy. At least Ebenezer Scrooge learned his lesson, unlike most conservatives.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)with one party extreme right and the other party conservative. Big Money cant lose. The Left should not consider starting a new party but it's going to be tough to fight the Big Money for control of the DEmocratic Party. We wont get any help from within the party because, at least at top levels, it's controlled by conservatives. However, there are a number of progressive organizations that are "helping" the Democratic Party rebuilt it's progressive wing. We need to support Democrats thru these organizations.
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)We must never give up on getting the big money out of politics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/a-landslide-loss-for-big-money.html?_r=0
rastaone
(57 posts)Increase general welfare while decreasing corporate welfare, decrease the warfare machine and eliminate the war of drugs. Implement these 3 Ws and the we win all the youth. The youth risk being saddled with social con policies if they go with the Rs. That is a huge deterrence right now for many youth.
Lets hope the new republicans are too stupid to drop social conservatives for more votes
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)Young people voted for change when they voted for Obama. They didn't get it. All they got was more of the same and even more lame excuses.
allin99
(894 posts)that Obama would lead young people to become cynics b/c he was all talk. Something like that. "would create a generation of cynics".
Mike Gravel calls it like he sees it and he saw this coming day 1. Always liked that dude, he was always calling people out on their bulls--t. lol.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Nice trade-off.
UTUSN
(70,649 posts)magellan
(13,257 posts)Young liberals may not look further than what libertarians choose to discuss about their platform. Hell, I have middle-aged liberal friends who've fallen for their ruse and either didn't vote last November or voted for Johnson.
Liberals can find alliance with libertarians on certain issues, but the devil's in the details. Libertarians are completely anti-regulation, pro-free market. No more FDA, EPA, kids. You get food poisoning or die as a result of a new drug on the market, sue the company. Or your surviving family can. Do you believe climate change is a real problem? Libertarians aren't going to force industries to do squat about it. And they sure as hell wouldn't have forced BP to pay out or clean up after the Gulf oil spill.
Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, unemployment insurance, vacation/sick time, minimum wage? Forget it. They'll strip the government down to nothing and give businesses complete sanction to work you as many hours a week as they like for as few peanuts as they can get away with. And forget public education and child labor laws. If you have kids and can't afford to put them in school, they can slave alongside you all day.
Women's reproductive rights? Healthcare? Civil rights? Bwahahaha! Oh sure, libertarians love talking about civil liberties. What they don't say too loudly is their concept of it is rooted in property ownership. Meaning everyone can do what the hell they like at home and business. Racist or bigoted business owners can bar and refuse to employ whoever they like on whatever grounds they like. Your neighbor can make a garbage dump of their property.
Same sex marriage? Sure. But see the above. They're for it, but they won't protect you when your employer fires you for being gay.
And anyone who doesn't like these things can -- wait for it -- protest. Or try to sue. Good luck.
Then there's gun control. I trust I don't need to explain where libertarians stand on this issue.
Libertarians and Republicans share a lot more in common than libertarians and liberals.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)magellan
(13,257 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)That is simply throwing hands up in despair?
Voting is low, just wait.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)the GOP would cut the military, end the domestic spying, the Wall Street bank bailouts, and the war on marijuana.
LOL.. a snowball in hell comes to mind!
We People
(619 posts)I would think that young liberals and libertarians alike would be concerned about that topic!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Keeping people secure does not mean checking their e-mails and phone calls for suspicious or subversive language.
It means making sure everyone is fed, healthy, educated and employed. It means ending American's dependence on foreign imports for vital things like shoes and tee-shirts.
It means making sure that all Americans who want to work can find jobs. It means having a modicum of economic justice and not allowing the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer. It means not having a medieval disparity in wealth that divides one American from another. It means rewarding work, but not punishing those who can't get it.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Kids are not growing up to be cynical libertarians. They are growing up to be cynical adults, like most of us here.
lark
(23,065 posts)If they appeal to young voters, they will auto alienate the religious base and the military base as well. These are mutually exclusive. Repugs have hung their hats on the military and moral majority bases and are now stuck with them. They will NEVER go against the rich, that's who they are and who writes their laws. They would throw out the religious folks way before they'd even think of touching the rich.
pansypoo53219
(20,955 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Particulary homophobia, anti-choice, racialism, and so on.
That is what will keep young liberty-leaning voters from going their way.
A 35-year-old man in my family recently resigned from the libertarian party because of the NUTTERS in it.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)with Obama and this Congress of the 1%.
If people don't see a significant, sincere effort by Democrats to bring Wall St. and the 1% under control before 2016, and Democrats run another Third Way corporate puppet in 2016, expect a Republican president, because, right or wrong, angry people will not vote, or will vote third party and take their chances with revolution.
Personally, I have made arrangements to move to a tropical paradise for the rest of my life, sometime between now and the end of 2017.
If Democrats don't run someone like Elizabeth Warren or Alan Grayson in 2016, the only shred of hope left for change will be world revolution.
Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are nice people, but they won't be going all super radical FDR if elected, and going radical FDR is the only way to get done what needs to be done, outside of world revolution.
So all y'all just call me when the revolution starts, and I'll drop my Mojito and help get it done.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)The far left is especially anti-police and anti-military industrial complex. There is somewhat of a common thread with the far right in being anti-government regulation, although the regulations and regulatory bodies that they dislike are different. The left doesn't want drugs regulated, while the right doesn't want guns regulated. Neither wants to pay taxes, but the left likes government programs, e.g. healthcare, so long as they are free.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)despite all evidence to the contrary.
Most in the Center can't even tell the difference between capitalism and democracy; they believe that capitalism is a system of government, just as they believe that democracy is government of, by, and for, wealthy private interests.
The Center considers real democrats, who believe in genuine government of, by, and for the people, the left lunatic fringe.
The Third Way is the path that takes us over the bridge to the same RW chaotic serfdom of nowhere inhabited by the right.
"Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are.' It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from. Plus every time you move to the center, the right just moves further to the right." - George Lakoff
and +1 your post up-thread, too, both excellent.
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)is now labeled "far left."
still_one
(92,061 posts)Republicans, and anti-minority to boot
Really not a winning combination for the future
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)So young people, angry about cuts to government spending on social services, will adopt an ideology that wants to end all government spending on social services.
Umm ... Ok.
We People
(619 posts)by default.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The article argues that the young will become libertarians.
Galraedia
(5,020 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)young people are pretty dumb, or at a minimum, driven by shallow emotion and a lack of understanding of how a divided government behaves.
Serve The Servants
(328 posts)support the police state or support the nanny state, it isn't that hard to want to try something different.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)The real money will dump the GOP in a nanosecond if the 'libertarian' party can gain traction and deliver. The money only cares about legislation that benefits them - they would LOVE to get away from the crazies if they could still get all their business/corporate initiatives passed, AND seen as a 'new' direction. Privatizing EVERYTHING is their goal.
Imagine - a party that can 'claim' to be tough and pragmatic. That the gov should be run like a business (it can't) and that the market god will regulate best with no gov interference - well - unless you have to bail the rich out because, well, what are you gonna do? And of course legalize pot, play lip service to 'privacy rights' all the while minimizing your actual freedom and granting corporations unlimited powers.
And 75% of the young people I know would fall for it. They're being fed the free-market leg humping bullshit that the "market" will sort it all out, and that poor people are only poor because they're lazy and/or stupid. They see the GOP as batshit crazy, yes. But what's the democratic party offering ? Where's the vision, passion, excellence etc that youth can connect to ? Oh, yeah, those 3D chess games and strongly worded letters...
MisterP
(23,730 posts)militarists, libertarians, the religious right, and big business; these all interact very heavily, with lots of traffic of ideas (excuses, really, half of them based on KKK and Bircher talking points); there's also a lot of tension
probably the best outcome for the corporations is a hegemony friendly to them ("accept GMOs or be responsible for billions of deaths!" "vote for neolibs!"
that makes sure that
these sites are very solid
http://www.sourcewatch.org/
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/
http://www.prwatch.org/
but of course there are always corporate sham imitations: Alex Jones and Gabriel Kolko fans throw up enough chaff to make sure that real investigations of shadowy actions don't stand out against the background of their fluff conspiracies; this in turn strengthens the feckless corporate mainstream, since "with both left and right spinning conspiracies, who can know what to believe"
one could also argue 'inverted totalitarianism'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
While the versions of totalitarianism represented by Nazism and Fascism consolidated power by suppressing liberal political practices that had sunk only shallow cultural roots, Superpower represents a drive towards totality that draws from the setting where liberalism and democracy have been established for more than two centuries. It is Nazism turned upside-down, “inverted totalitarianism.” While it is a system that aspires to totality, it is driven by an ideology of the cost-effective rather than of a “master race” (Herrenvolk), by the material rather than the “ideal.”[5]
According to Wolin, there are three main ways in which inverted totalitarianism is the inverted form of classical totalitarianism.
Whereas in Nazi Germany the state dominated economic actors, in inverted totalitarianism, corporations through political contributions and lobbying, dominate the United States, with the government acting as the servant of large corporations. This is considered "normal" rather than corruption.[6]
While the Nazi regime aimed at the constant political mobilization of the population, with its Nuremberg rallies, Hitler Youth, and so on, inverted totalitarianism aims for the mass of the population to be in a persistent state of political apathy. The only type of political activity expected or desired from the citizenry is voting. Low electoral turnouts are favorably received as an indication that the bulk of the population has given up hope that the government will ever help them.[7]
While the Nazis openly mocked democracy, the United States maintains the conceit that it is the model of democracy for the whole world.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
totodeinhere
(13,057 posts)could see a different party alignment with a new major party emerging to the left of today's Democrats. Personally I would like to see it. Under that scenario perhaps our two party system might work again.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Yes, the Democrats are making progress socially....but economically the Democrats look absolutely no different than the Republicans.
Democrats are protecting the banks. They are protecting Wall Street.
calimary
(81,125 posts)Complacency can kill us.
summer-hazz
(112 posts)for a Democrat and got a Republican...
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)Let's hope we all remember this when the Party tries to force us to elect yet another establishment candidate beholding to corporate interests and not the people who elect them. We have to save our Party from it's leaders who only think in the short term.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)I realize that is outrageously hypocritical coming from people who have up to now been calling President Obama a radical leftist - Muslim-Marist who is soft on terrorism - but nonetheless I can see who this cynicism can resonate
KoKo
(84,711 posts)be a Left Dem sentiment but leaves out "Bailed Out Wall Street and Forced Austerity on the People."
But, assume it was from a Repug post on Facebook?
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)No taxes!, legal pot and prostitution, no war, no regulations. Clever like a Fox.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That's the sensible alternative?
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)Whoa whoa whoa
Are we really calling right wing libertarianism cynical?
The philosophy that claims if we just stop making laws and regulations the Market will MAGICALLY fix its self thanks to the invisible market fairies in the sky???
No, the problem with right wing libertarianism is not that its cynical, but that it is dangerously and DELUSION-ALLY optimistic.
Galraedia
(5,020 posts)But that's probably because the last thing a sane person wants to hear is advice on drugs from a person with a delusional political ideology.
emulatorloo
(44,071 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)If CAPITALISM is left intact, it matters not what you call the structure of governance. Because it is a virulent form of social cancer that eats everything in its path.
- It's designed that way. That is its nature. You can't ''fix'' it.....
K&R
Uncle Joe
(58,298 posts)sect disguised as libertarians.
While they support a weak government in regards to the people's affairs, their policies would only serve to promote corporate supremacist rule in its' place.
Corporations especially mega corporations are by no means libertarian, they're authoritarian by nature.
I have no problem supporting Democratic type Libertarians, which in my book the ACLU is one such symbol of.
Thanks for the thread, kpete.
BrainDrain
(244 posts)dumping Hillary Clinton as a possible presidential candidate.
Then we would be getting somewhere.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)In support of Libertarian talking points though.
The US is a desperate gullible populace seeking needed change finding none. The Libertarian path would increase corporate power and economic disparity.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm curious as to which specific ones you are referring to. You seem awfully certain.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)have to address the issue. They can simply dismiss anyone who wants to legalize marijuana.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Like with Marriage Equality until real recently, the people are out in front of the "leaders". I doubt you'd find a hell of a lot of people here on DU who think pot prohibition makes a single fucking lick of sense. Does that mean DU is full of "Libertarians"?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)bullied into voting for democrats in the past so that the crazy republicans wouldn't win. I don't think that is going to work anymore. I wouldn't doubt it if that's why some on DU are trying so desperately to defend the NSA programs, to try and continue to bully liberals into voting democrat. Some have even gone so far as to call anyone who criticizes Obama as being racist. I think the corporatist democrats are beginning to realize they may not be able to bully liberals into voting democrat forever.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Some brave LIBERAL values.
We shall see.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)albeit one that was, to many of our minds, overdue. Still, he's there now.
I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of the ACA, however I see it as an improvement; particularly guaranteed issue. Insurance Companies no longer being able to deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions.
Again, progress.
No, I so believe that Obama has it in him to effect some tectonic shifts on some major issues; or at least to facilitate them, because (like with the end of pot prohibition, or marriage equality) I think these are inevitables. It just requires being on the right side of history.
lhooq
(35 posts)I really doubt that many of the young, disgusted with George W. Obama's backsliding, are going to jump ship and join forces with the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. What is this libertarianism other than defense of the rights of the privileged to become even more privileged at the expense of everyone else? If Tweedledee is dysfunctional, then why should you expect tweedledum to be any better?
No, the threat to the Democratic Party, and also the hope too (in my opinion), is that the disgruntled young Democrats will turn to local solutions, communally created and run. When big government can't or won't deliver (e.g., affordable health insurance, because their state did not expand Medicaid, or affordable college tuition), then small government, the work of the people themselves, can fill the void. Here I am thinking of 1970s era books such as The Whole Earth Catalog and Our Bodies, Ourselves as well as the more recent book Worldchanging. I call this enlightened anarchism. It's taking back power from the corporate elite of both parties.
For example, because Obama government is going to continue to spy on you, you respond by taking cryptography and privacy into your own hands.
Overall, what's undermined in all of this is trust that big government can be effective at doing good for the public as a whole. FDR showed a strong federal government at its best -- through it the American people defeated the Great Depression, the Japanese, and the Nazis. In recent years, we have seen it at its worst.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)That ship has sailed for a growing number of people.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)No worries here! Who are these crazy people saying such nutty stuff!
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is so weird on a democratic board to see the Democrats blamed for everything that goes wrong, including the election of Republicans. It's like the baseball fan who blames their pitcher when the other team wins but then gives credit to their own team's hitters when the team wins.
You blame Democrats when Republicans win and then the claim when Democrats win, it is only because the Republicans didn't have a good candidate.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)for eating a fucking brownie?
Some people here are really enjoying pissing and moaning now like these crazy "libertarian" notions are some fucking high impossible unreasonable bar or something. They're not. Stop wasting tax dollars filling prisons with people serving mandatory minimum drug sentences. Respect the fucking 4th Amendment.
It's not some god-damn Ayn Rand fantasy; in fact, it's a lot of the stuff Obama campaigned on in 2008. Now some people want to wet themselves with outrage over the youthful "libertarianism" of folks who believed The President when he campaigned on things like The Patriot Act, or Warrantless spying, or stopping the misguided priority of the DOJ to haul sick people off to prison because they have a bag of pot.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Simple respect for the Constitution, ending the war on drugs, that kind of thing.
It's absurd to pretend that has anything to do with the idiots who don't believe in taxes or fire departments or whatever; it's idiotic, but then there are people here who get a lot of mileage out of deliberately conflating small-l libertarian thought or policies of left-libertarianism (which most people here agree with, point by point) with the big-L Libertarian Party.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)But the Republicans aren't going to give up the angry white asshole vote to accommodate Dennis Miller TNG and believe me, angry white assholes are a renewable resource. There will always be enough of them to elect republicans in gerrymandered districts to national office.
