My what a sweeping shift this board has taken in ideology this past year!!!!

[inthebrain]

It's interesting to see some new posters here with a bit of a rightward view and some older posters becoming more radicalized or moving a little leftward. Seems like a lot of jumbling about.

One thing I am seeing that is interesting is that with Bush out of office it looks like some new battle lines are being drawn. I wonder if a lot of that has to do with some Republicans that have swung Democrat and an influx of youth now taking an interest in this side of the fence.

Who knows? I know that the fast pace of this board doesn't allow for many introductions.

I'm really interested in how these shifts fianlly solidify themeselves. In the last thirty or so years it seems that the country has suffered serious social and economic decay. I wonder how some folks on this board react to it?

If there is a tenant strike where the loyalties fall?

If a neighbors decide to camp out on a porch and refuse the sherrif to kick the family out where people stand.

One thing is certain, without a real anti war movement or poor peoples movement Obama is going to have a tough time fulfilling all his campaign promises.

Who here will become radicalized in the coming months or years?

Perhaps with Bush gone this place really will continue to be interesting. I also wonder with the election over how people hold the issue they held so dearly. Do they continue to hold onto them or let them drop?

[JeffR]

1. Very thought-provoking questions.

Nice to see you posting here recently, BTW. You've been scarce. At least, I haven't seen you around much.

[SuperTrouper]

34. This is an excellent post. I honestly find myself moving to the left in the past year,

I believed that I was more centrist before the Bush Administration came into DC, but I have noticed that I have moved to the left, especially after my two brothers in the Iraq War told me what was really going down there. Very good observation from the OP

[leftstreet]

2. You ask great questions

I think things are going to get very interesting here.

[FrenchieCat]

3. I haven't seen this "shift" in ideology this past year......

Could you provide some examples?

Thanks.

[mitchtv]

How about the overwhelming outright homophobia

Rampant in DU these days? y so called Democrats

[Vanje]

47. Since 2001, you could've counted the times on one hand that

I posted in GLBT forum....
....until I was overwhelmed by posts right here at DU, trivializing the interests of gays.
There was one camel's back-breaking straw of a post, in which was said, "Everything was fine until the gays went nuclear."
That shit was right in my face! Hundreds of posters kicked and rec'd threads suggesting that whining "poutraged" gays were ruining the pre-inaugural buzz.

That sonic boom many in SW Idaho thought they heard, was just me, going Nuclear.
As for Obama's term in office, I remain very optimistic. I was'nt nearly as upset with Obama's choice of Rick Warren, as I was dissappointed in what stereotypic homophobic crap I was hearing right here at DU.

My fuse is lit.
I'm not going to forget.

[QC]

55. Amen! n/t

[anonymous171]

56. What are you talking about? nt

[mitchtv]

57. Just read the two preceding posts

The examples are too numerous to track down . It comes down to an inability or lack of interest in policing homophobic content on the part of some and a now majority willing to discount lgbt cries for respect and justice. Your question in itself is telling. (even spellcheck wanted to change LGBT to KGB! LOL)

[mitchtv]

45. sorry overactive touch pad

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. I think I've been fairly consistent in my desire for economic populism

It is my #1 issue, and one in which I fear the administration will fall short.

I don't know if my criticism of Obama on that basis makes me appear "more radicalized" or holding "a bit of a rightward view".

I'm pleased at the actions he's taken on transparency, on lobbying, on torture, on Gitmo and on Iraq. However, the actions I want him to take are things he has (at best) not promised (or at worst promised the opposite).

[FlyingSquirrel]

19. If the administration falls short, it won't be for lack of effort

Obama was a community organizer, he's seen firsthand the effects of economic disparity. I'm really looking forward to seeing some real help for Katrina victims finally (and the other disasters as well, of course.)

[inthebrain]

36. I wonder what "economic populism" is?

I've heard that term on here before. Usually it refers to economic nationalism that turns the working classes against each other.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. Sounds like you have a pretty good stereotype of what it means to you.

To me, it means that since the US GDP per capita is $44,000, there is no legitimate reason for anyone to go without the necessities of life.

Further, our labor is the primary asset that most of us possess. It is in our interest to make it as valuable as possible, which means restricting the flow of cheap labor into the country and restricting the ability for corporations to offshore jobs.

[inthebrain]

51. You confirmed the "so called" stereotype

<<<<<It is in our interest to make it as valuable as possible, which means restricting the flow of cheap labor into the country and restricting the ability for corporations to offshore jobs.>>>>

Why don't you call it what it really is "economic nationalism". Oh, and it's complete bullshit.

Whenever you degrade the labor of one you cheapen the labor OF ALL.

Oh, and that is a right wing attribute and you are attacking the issue FROM THE RIGHT.

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. Then you are on the wrong side. n/t

[inthebrain]

58. People I have common class interest with are not my enemy

but you fail to see the etiology in how this all ocurred.

There is nothing stopping a multinational from setting up shop somewhere else. Mostly in places where the work standards are shitty. There is nothing from stopping them from moving when those workers stand up and demand better treatment.

What's needed it class consciousness not nationalism. Nationalism is what these multinationals want.

The more you pin the target on labor the worse you make it for youself and everyone else.

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. You don't have a common interest with those who devalue your labor.

The reason that there's nothing stopping a multinational from setting up shop somewhere else is because those who are harmed by it are disinclined to do anything except wring their hands and offer sympathy to the poor unfortunate workers in third world sweatshops who now perform those tasks.

So long as labor's self interest is denigrated using terms like "economic nationalism", there's nowhere to go but down.

The more you pin the target on labor the worse you make it for youself and everyone else.

Can you clarify this? First read suggests that you think that making waves ("pin(ning) the target on labor") risks bringing the wrath of "the man". I would not expect to read that here, so I'll give you the opportunity to clear it up.

[inthebrain]

67. Nationalism serves the class interests of the bosses

Here's your economic nationalism at work;;


With the Big Three companies announcing layoffs and extending Christmas-New Year plant idlings for up to a month, and unemployment soaring in Michigan to 9.6 percent, this attempt to blame the crisis on "foreigners" is evidently having some effect. Police in the Detroit suburb of Woodhaven reported last Friday that the tires of five Japanese and European-made cars were punctured and the vehicles were defaced with "Buy USA" graffiti at a shopping mall parking lot next to a Ford plant.


Auto workers have a long and bitter experience with the snake oil of America-first chauvinism peddled by the UAW bureaucracy and the Democratic Party. It has been nearly 30 years since the UAW, in league with CEO Lee Iacocca, initiated its flag-waving "Buy American" campaign during the 1979-80 Chrysler bailout, which marked the beginning of three decades of wage and benefit concessions.


The denunciations of Japan and Germany, the "Remember Pearl Harbor" bumper stickers and the sledge-hammering of Toyotas and Datsuns in UAW parking lots coincided with the ever-closer integration of the union into the structure of corporate management, including the elevation of then-UAW President Douglas Fraser onto Chrysler's board of directors.


Economic nationalism went hand-in-hand with corporatism and the claim by the UAW that workers had no independent interests separate and apart from those of the auto bosses. In the name of "labor-management partnership" the union suppressed all resistance to plant closures and demands for lower wages and speed-up. To oppose concessions, the UAW argued, was to undermine the "competitiveness" of the American auto companies and give the advantage to foreign companies.


The chauvinism and anti-Asian racism of the UAW will forever be connected with one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the American labor movement—the murder of a young Chinese-American named Vincent Chin, who was beaten to death by a Chrysler supervisor and his laid-off stepson in the Detroit enclave of Highland Park in June 1982.


The economic nationalism of the UAW has produced nothing but a disaster for auto workers, who have seen the destruction of more than 600,000 jobs at General Motors, Ford and Chrysler since 1979 and unending demands for concessions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. Bullshit, the UAW has been fighting a valiant but losing battle...

... to prevent the degradation that we're suffering at the hands of the chamber of commerce and 30+ years of Reaganism.

My grandfather was a Molly McGuire. It is not in my nature to wring my hands and stand impotently by, or worse, criticize the resistance for bringing the wrath of the man.

[inthebrain]

71. The Union bosses also screwed their own constituents by getting in bed with the bosses

And that's why the UAW is fucked.

They used to be a very powerful and influential Union. They lost everything they had going for them when they endorsed Reagan's and your economic nationalistic program. In the end the bosses won out they've lost pay and benefits.

The UAW leadership is corrupt and serves the interest of the bosses not the laborers.

[lumberjack_jeff]

82. You think that Reagan was an economic populist?

His rhetoric was solely for the purpose of fooling blue collar folks into thinking they have something in common with the plutocracy. "My economic nationalism" would protect US workers at the expense of those who would devalue it.

[inthebrain]

84. WOW!!! Reagan started that whole buy American crap

as a ruse to fool the Unions into giving concessions. The whole "Japan is taking over the world" and the "Commies are out producing us" crap.

But I suppose your lazy argument that I am somehow defending Reagan to lend some credibility to your argument is supposed to be convincing. All the while, in reality, you're both advocating the same thing.

But the sad thing is that Reagan fucking new he was full of shit with that crap. You, OTOH, haven't learned a damn thing from it.

Labor in this country in the past have gotten together with migrant workers, Immigrant workers, African, Asian, Women etc and kicked the corporation's asses with random national strikes, sit ins, walk outs and marches. Reagan was a fucking a nationalist much like yourself.

The snake oil your selling here is nothing fucking new. Labor eventually wises up to it and bucks it and all signs to point to them doing it again.

[lumberjack_jeff]

87. "Buy american" started with Reagan? Really?

Whatever dude. I'm not the one suffering from your ignorance.

[Forkboy]

89. "buy American" goes back to the very start of our country.

:shrug:

[Major Hogwash]

86. Anti-unionism was Reagan's trademark.

That's another reason he went to hell.
More banks failed under Reagan than during the entire decade of the Great Depression.

The Savings and Loan crisis of the 80s happened under Reagan because he wanted the banking industry deregulated.
Now that Bush is out of the White House, we need to bring back enforcement of the laws that are on the books.
Instead of looking the other way, the way Bush did.

We need to reinvest in America to help out all the people, not just the few who are rich, for a change.
We need to tighten our belts and divest ourselves of being the policeman to the world.
We need to build a coalition of the willing to rebuild Afghanistan, instead of killing Afghanis.
Together, with other nations, we can do this.
But, the going will be slow in the beginning.
Yet in the next 4 years, we will have stepped forward toward progress and will not shrug our responsibilities to rebuild Iraq.

We broke it, we can fix it.
But, we need a little more time and a little more cooperation.

And a lot less of Rush Limbaugh!!

[Joe Chi Minh]

90. Rubbish justice, as well as charity, begins at home. In the link cited beow, it is

stated that multinationals can outmanoeuvre governments. I don't see why that should be the case. Have r-e-e-e-lly purposeful Socialist national governments been unable to prevent the marauding beasts from scarpering abroad with their loot? Anyway, the author suggests that supra-national bodies such as the EU and NATO could put a stop to their shenanigans. It's surely high time. Way past, in fact.Massive corporations can outmanouver governments and therefore evade the law. Multinationals organisations like the UN and EU can fight back. The heads of large companies have massive power over staff, employment, industry, national economies, the environment and yet are not elected nor publicly accountable for their actions. Supra-national organisations, staffed by those on the pay roll of elected governments, empowers democracy with renewed control. National democratic consolidation of power is required in order to reign in multinational corporations that are presently beyond the law because they can avoid the laws of any one particular government.

“Nation-states, some argue, are too small to be able to influence global change, and too large to respond effectively to the pressures for increased flexibility and competitiveness, or as Giddens put it 'too small to solve the big problems, but also too large to solve the small ones'.”
"A Globalizing World? Culture, Economics, Politics" Held (2004), p7

We clearly need multinational governmental bodies to control multinational corporations. Not only will this bring capitalism back under the protective arms of democracy, but it will also solve the second problem identified by Held and Giddens: It will allow national governments to concentrate more on the small problems of national well-being."

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/multinationals.html

[merh]

5. I still consider many of the issues that I have held dearly to be

crucial, I am willing to allow the O admin time. I also realize that our economy is in such sad shape that it deserves the focus.

[inthebrain]

6. I'm interested in what those issues are and how they play out with you

my views are probably a little more radicalized than most of the boards.

My take is that I still keep the ones I care about the most at the forfront. Every administation seems to have excuses for backing off what they promised once they get in. Supporters after a while become cynical and less involved later on as they become dissapointed.

I think you have to mix direct action in with the ballot box. For the most part I think the core consituency that wanted an end to the war has withered away these last few months. Even over the course of the last two years as Iraq has fallen out of the news a bit. There's really not a bid social movement demanding an end to it.

Should be interesting if that picks up steam or withers away.

[merh]

9. End of torture, withdrawal from Iraq, end of military hostilites, restore diplomacy

end to no-bid contracts, provide health care, protect voting rights, ensure civil rights for all, restore the DOJ as the people's counsel, address climate change, protect the environment, etc - most of these issues will take time to address/correct. Eight years of destruction cannot be corrected overnight.

The one thing bushco did well was to create scandal by abusing the office and ignoring their obligations to the citizens - their administration created "scandal fatigue" and it has to be daunting to step into their mess and to realize how deep it is, how widespread.

most important thing for Obama, appoint SCOTUS justices that know and understand the constitution and their duty to the citizens (as opposed to the corporations and a ruling party).

[Zynx]

48. The system is geared to produce moderation in action.

It's a flaw, but also a blessing. It limited the damage, as severe as it was, that Bush did. It also constrains us.

[firedupdem]

33. Always a voice of reason. Thanks merh!

:hug:

[BlooInBloo]

7. I haven't noticed an ideological shift, but rather only that DUers are permanently stuck...

in protest-mode.

[FairSpanishLadies]

8. As you can clearly see by the posts above...there are none so blind as those who will not see.

There are elements of the ridiculous on this site and a couple of them have already chimed-in with their who-what-where-when-why? brand of "liberalism".

Hopefully, this site will stop being a glorified fansite for Obama and get back to respecting the ideas of liberalism.

[Peacetrain]

50. We Won! NT

[Dragonfli]

10. I believe it will become more interesting, The new lines were inevitable once a common foe was

Driven back. (not defeated as some would believe, but weakened yes).

My true enemy wears many uniforms and always lives off the expense and blood of the ones that can least afford a uniform. The ones that usually have to bleed and provide the others with power and money from their own sweat and pain are seldom heard by those who promise to help.

The GOP is on the run but have not given up - the DLC are growing in power and becoming the greater threat. There is much left to do for a populist pacifist such as myself.

I have grown up in poverty, but grown wiser in empathy having achieved enough to eat while others have not.

It is my hope to push, cajole, encourage and even to shame the less empathetic to force the wearers of uniforms blue or red to take notice of the need for anti-poor and antiwar movements in a world that is slowly dying of both plagues. Does this mean I am becoming more radicalized?

Perhaps

but I feel the same as I did when Red was in vogue.

[IGotAName]

11. Whether the lines are here or there, all that I care about is that

the people with axes to grind or those incapable of critical thinking post less than others.

[saracat]

12. Very interesting and true. I have seen shift more to the right. The

recent reaction of posters to the subjects of LBGTQ Rights and Women's Rights has at times made me question what kind of board this was becoming!
I had one poster respond to me on those subjects to the effect of not carting if all those issues were thrown under the bus as long as we elected a Democrat it would be worth it and I found that chilling!

But the rightward lean sometimes evidences itself in RL as well. I several times have had folks who label themselves "progressive " Dems inform me that "Choice" is just "my " issue and isn't relevant to the political climate of the day.

[biopowertoday]

60. this is very

scary indeed.

............
But the rightward lean sometimes evidences itself in RL as well. I several times have had folks who label themselves "progressive " Dems inform me that "Choice" is just "my " issue and isn't relevant to the political climate of the day.

[earth mom]

13. Some people around here have sold out just so "history" could be made-no matter what.

Some around here even find every excuse possible for the bombings on Pakistan that Obama authorized which absolutely blows my mind.

And that's just one example of how some people around here no longer care about doing the right thing. :puke:

[AllentownJake]

15. He did what he said he was going to do

I don't recall Obama ever saying I won't bomb Pakistan...he actually said quite the opposite.

You can disagree with the action but you can't act surprised that he kept a campaign promise.

[Two Americas]

24. "surprise"

What is it with the "surprise" thing that keeps popping up?

I don't think anyone is "acting surprised." Let's say they were - so what?

There can be no doubt in the world that the most zealous Obama supporters during the primary were pounding and pounding on that one anti-war speech he made, and on Clinton's IWR vote. They most certainly wanted everyone to believe he was the ant-war candidate. Many of them have certainly radically changed their tune now. Most of those criticizing him over that now were saying the same thing back then. Where is this "surprise" that people are supposedly expressing and therefore presumed to be stupid, or wrong?

Where do these talking points come from anyway? MSM? Every few days there is a new attack on critics and dissidents, a new clever word or phrase, and suddenly you are hearing it all over the place. This "surprise" thing was preceded by "angry" and before that "pouters" and before that "he hasn't even taken office" and then we had "they are labeling people homophobic." Those little words and phrases then get repeated over and over and over again. Very strange.

[pecwae]

25. Good post,

good points, good questions.

[glitch]

30. The repetition makes it easier to spot talking points (and their tools), which I find useful. nt

[dbmk]

18. But what is "the right thing"?

You seem to have it defined, and thats fair enough. But the debates will be a lot more nuanced, now that people as a "Democrats" group owns the actions.

[AllentownJake]

14. One thing I've observed about democratic politics

Except for nuance most of us agree with each other 90% to 95% of the time.

Where we fight is the order of doing things.

Do we invest all our political capital on ending the war or on building the economy.

Do we start off with civil rights when our capital is high or do we go for economic and social policy. What about reproductive rights. What about healthcare. All of us have one issue that can send us into an absolute ranting lunatic and other issues we generally agree should be addressed but aren't the issues that get us out there canvassing and knocking on doors.

Within the party there are loyalist who do whatever the leaders say and their are bomb throwers who are out there campaigning on their particular issue alone. Both have important roles in the party. The bomb throwers keep the leaders on their toes and the leaders keep the agenda moving forward sometimes not in the order that we all personally like.

Under Bush we had a common unifying enemy because all of our "most important issues" were under attack. Unifying against that is easy. Keeping a coalition together is alot harder and trying to maintain the delicate need for bomb throwers and leadership is a tightrope.

[Mari333]

16. I am personally somewhat taken aback by the keyboard warmongers

I have seen on here lately. People who are chest thumping for Obama's surge into Afghanistan. wtf. I called them chickenhawks back in the Bush era..now they are on here.. creepy as hell.

[glitch]

31. Power shift -- natural when something dies for there to be an influx of its "survivors" elsewhere.

The power has shifted away from the Republican Party, now the Democratic Party itself will be the ideological battleground. Logical to see that played out in a small way here.

In my best case scenario the Fascist-Republican Party loses just enough power to never be effective ever again but keeps enough power to act as flypaper to the Fascists, now safely sequestered in their own "free-speech zone".

The Democratic Party then splits into the Progressive wing versus the Centerist wing, and the Progressive wing consistently wins. :)

[KittyWampus]

32. Obama stated REPEATEDLY he would finish the job in Afghanistan. Chickenhawks are about unnecessary

displays of military power.

So really, I'm taken aback by how many DU'ers didn't seem to listen to Obama during the campaign and/or don't understand that there're some extreme elements that need to be dealt with on border of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

[Mari333]

46. chickenhawks are about people who are willing to send other peoples kids to war

and not willing to go themselves or send their own kids.
and theres a few on DU.

[jeanpalmer]

78. I'm really disappointed in Obama's response

to the predator drone attack on civilians. He should have condemned it. He should have stopped it before it happened. His moral nonchalance is disturbing. To lecture muslims about how they have to give up the clenched fist while he's killing civilians with drones shows he's out to lunch. He's not a moral individual. I'll give him a chance, but stopping these predator attacks is an obvious thing to do, for anyone with an ounce of morality. He's got to shape up.

[dbmk]

17. In power.

Before it was easy to draw the line as "us vs. them". Single issues were inferior to the greater and general problem of an Republican administration calling some horrible shots.

But now Obama is in place and the Democrats have power in all chambers. So the lines will be drawn on issues. What issues are most important? There is now room for a more varied and opinionated discussion on matters that matter.

Light is being shed on the full spectrum now. You are seeing the shades of blue, that seemed so irrelevant before.

[acmavm]

20. A big part of it is blind idol worship. People here can come up with anq

excuse for anything as long as it comes from the Obama admin.

[AllentownJake]

22. Depending on the issue

I will defend him. Depending on the issue I'll criticise. I think that is the majority of posters on here.

I thought the Warren thing was repulsive and couldn't be defended...others disagreed looking back...I'm sure there is an issue that they will find repulsive at some point in the next 4 hopefully 8 years.

[AtomicKitten]

28. The accusation of idol worship is intended to summarily dismiss people.

Off the top of my head, I disagree with Obama on Afghanistan, healthcare insurance program, gay marriage, kowtowing to the GOP, and I'm apprehensive about many of his appointments. That's not idolatry in my book but the epithet is thrown about by those content to summarily lump people together to dismiss them from up on high. On edit: I will add that that 'tude is not conducive toward persuading Democrats to move left.

[boppers]

21. tenant strike? squatters?

I'd guess different people have different issues, different focal points.

Lets imagine a minority disabled union worker, who inherited her mom's house, which is currently being inhabited by undocumented immigrants (who sexually harass her as a landlord), and refuse to pay their back rent, which was increased to cover her increased health-care costs.

Where do the loyalties fall? Quite frankly, the real world doesn't, and shouldn't, have simplistic "loyalties".

The real world is complex, where there are no "good guys" and "bad guys".

[rug]

23. LBJ's achilles heel was war.

He would have been the greatest president save FDR if he didn't buy into the crap of fighting "them".

In the end it was the antiwar movement that drove him out leaving much of his promise unfulfilled.

[autorank]

26. Give and take, dialog, mutual respect ought to be the themes k*r

With all of that, things can get more interesting.

I truly hope that we see a return of some of the really outstanding news and information posts,
like the type Sabra, kpete, and babylonsister deliver. There are more in that wonderful category.
They are invaluable sources of information.

We're in a truly significant time in the history of the world, not just the United States. We face
the possible end of the human species due to accelerating environmental deterioration, the world
economy is in a shambles and we're totally broke, the greed on Wall Street is stunning. What
more could you ask for?

[Odin2005]

27. "influx of youth now taking an interest in this side of the fence. " I think you nailed it here.

This election marked when people such as myself that are too young to have seen the 60s and 70s emerged as the major political force in the country. What some are decrying as a "right-ward shift" is really a shift away from the rhetoric and issue-framings of the 60s and 70s. Older liberals will inevitably misinterpret this as "selling out", or "forgetting the 60s struggles" or some such histrionic nonsense.

[Still Sensible]

29. I think you're onto something

here. Probably a great deal of truth to that. Obviously, some here see DU as a "liberal" network, no question it is more liberal than most. Others, like myself, see it as a "democratic" network. I did experience the 60s and 70s and the battle lines were stark. Our side was more often in the right than the other guys, was neither side was pure.

[Odin2005]

38. IMO the problem is that many Boomers can't see that the Blue side of the culture wars has won.

The world has moved on from the 60s and 70s. It may not seem like it, but the Blue side of I have heard called the "Boom Awakening" has effectively won the culture wars, my "Millennial" generation is the least racist, the most socially liberal and the most environmentally conscious generation in US history. Things like Prop-8 are the futile last gasps of the Boomer Right. The main problem is that even though they are doomed they will fight to the bitter end, which is why I'm expecting a burst of domestic terrorism.

[Jennicut]

41. Yes. The younger the generation the more liberal it is.

Gen X (I am 33) saw Clinton become president and started on a more liberal path but the ones behind us all had nothing but Bush and rebelled against that.

[Still Sensible]

44. I am certainly happy that the younger

generations are more open-minded and tolerant. I think the jury is still out on their overall politics because the whole 30 years of consumerism may have set them up to be good little conservatives on economic issues as they age. Time will tell.

[Odin2005]

53. You would be suprised how much my generation supports what other decry as "big government".

It's a cyclical thing. Generations go through a cycle of...

1. Individualistic and spiritually oriented (Boomers, FDR's "Muckraker" generation)
2. Individualistic and materialistically oriented (Generation X, the "Lost" Generation of Truman and Eisenhower)
3. Collectivistic and materialistically oriented (The Millennial and WW2 generations)
4. Collectivistic and Spiritually oriented (today's preschoolers, the misleadingly named "Silent" generation of MLK and RFK)

[comrade snarky]

61. Now that's funny!

The boomers as a group "spiritually oriented"?

I'm so tired of the whitewashing of the yuppie 80s. It like the time when "greed is good" and the boomer fueled Regan revolution never happened. Somehow all the hippies of the 60s and early 70s jumped straight through time to re-appear in the mid 90s.

And just so I don't make the same mistake, it wasn't all of them but there were enough it cant be ignored and swept under the carpet.

On edit: Should have read further! We agree! :hi: :toast:

[Lilith Velkor]

64. That's what we all thought in 1979.

Excuse us if some of us are not ready to relax just yet.

[Zynx]

49. Indeed. My generation(I am 22) does not look upon the 1960s and 1970s political

wars favorably. We don't think about issues in the same way. We don't have the same commitments to past battles. That's both bad and good. I think more good than bad though. I think the political climate from 1968-2008 was nearly entirely negative.

[Odin2005]

52. I'm also 22 and totally agree with you.

A certain something that I can't exactly pinpoint went off the rails in 1968. It's like in the 12 years that followed the Kennedy "ask not..." spirit died and by 1980 people were screaming "Honk if you hate tax hikes" instead. The hippies turned into yuppies.

[YvonneCa]

74. Try this...

1960...Kennedy, "Ask not..."

1963...JF Kennedy assassinated.

1968...MLK assassinated.

1968...Robert Kennedy assassinated while running for president.

1960- 1968...Race riots in several large cities.

Add to that our friends were being drafted and sent off to the war in Viet Nam.

Bodybags coming home...LOTS of them.

Most hippies never became yuppies...must be nice to be so young. ;)

[SidneyCarton]

59. Agreed.

As the boomers age, the issues which defined them politically will no longer be dominant. The rising generations (x and y) have grown up in different worlds and have different perspectives on right and left. This shift will likely annoy and trouble the older DU'ers who will see the political battlefields of their youths, change dramatically.

[YvonneCa]

80. So did you canvass for Obama...

...in 2008?

[Laelth]

35. Been a lefty for years. Still a lefty.

No change here. The DLC has been with us for some time. That's not new either. Honestly, I haven't noticed the change you describe, but I might not have noticed.

:dem:

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--corrected typo.

[tledford]

39. A Palinism?

"If a neighbors decide to camp out on a porch and refuse the sherrif to kick the family out where people stand."

What does this sentence mean?

[Jennicut]

40. I'm in my early 30's and don't see major shifts

There are more younger people involved in politics now, much younger then me. They see some hope after all these years of Bush. They want Obama to succeed and are not caught up in just one issue. I remember Clinton but some of these kids don't even remember that. All they know is Bush so Obama seems incredible in comparison. I really like him so far as well.

[Odin2005]

65. The thing is though, that younger Gen-Xers like yourself and...

Members of the Millennial Generation such as myself (I'm 22, born in 1986) are too young to have seen the 60s and 70s. You aren't seeing the shift precisely because it is you younger gen-Xers and us Millennials that are old enough to vote that are enacting the shift. It is you Gen-Xers that created the Netroots and it's us Millennials that are the "boots on the ground". It's all part of a cycle between cultural and institutional change that lasts about 80 years. The WW1 (aka "lost") and WW2 generations created the post-WW2 political, economic, and infrastructural institutions that allowed a society where the next 2 generations (the "silent" and Boom generations) could forge social and cultural innovations. Now the cycle has come full circle and now you Gen-Xers and us Millennials will take the those social and cultural innovations and use them as the basis for creating a new political, economic, and infrastructural order, just like the "Social Gospel" of FDR's "Muckraker" generation (the last cycle's equivalent to the Boomers) was the basis of New Deal Liberalism.

[YvonneCa]

75. Got a link ...

...for that?

[Odin2005]

77. Here ya go:

This history/current event message board I post I has tons of info on the cycle I was talking about:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum

I'm the poster "Odin" there.

[YvonneCa]

79. So it's kind of like horoscopes...

...and generalizes a lot?

[Odin2005]

83. No. n/t

[riqster]

42. I haven't changed my views one bit, but

..I have become more impatient about seeing them realized, and less tolerant of RW 'ideas'.

[Danger Mouse]

43. With Bush gone we'll see more divisions on DU than we had previously.

Some people will attack Obama no matter WHAT he does, and some people will support Obama blindly, and the rest will be caught in between these warring factions.

[Kaleva]

76. Lack of a common enemy will open up the fizzures

and I expect alot more infighting here from now on out.

[ShortnFiery]

62. I've always been a pinko lefty a la Dennis Kucinich variety.

I haven't changed. Perhaps others have? :shrug:

[mmonk]

63. I will not agree with no responsibilty on the crimes committed

against the people nor will I agree with the same crony capitalism or spending all our money on the machinations of empire. The Democratic Party in my opinion is a little weak and without enough strong conviction to advance the ball as far as it needs too, even with the clear mandate given it. The beltway is where principles go to die. I'm tired of fighting but I know I have no choice but to keep adding pressure to do the right things.

[jzodda]

68. My views haven't changed for the most part

The financial meltdown has probably radicalized me a little more leftward though, but that was before the election. I also find myself only after a week of Obama finding that I don't really want to be bi-partisan. Once the house republicans all voted no I find that I now want to just ram through our agenda and to hell with the other side.

[ginnyinWI]

70. this would be a good subject for a poll, don't you think?

We've had similar ones in the past. Like "who used to be a Republican or Independent and now votes solid Dem?" See if there has been a shift.

It's a nicer place to be now, that's for sure. I hated the Hillary v.s. Obama wars. Well, that primary was the cause--very contentious. Most people seem to be giving Obama some time to get things together.

[Hollow Shells]

72. This website is leaning a little more to the right since I joined.

Perhaps I am to blame?

[salonghorn70]

73. Question For The OP

First, I do agree with all of the above posters who have said that you ask interesting questions. One question that you asked is who will become "radicalized?" What does this mean to you? This term was tossed around so much in the '60s. What does becoming radicalized mean in 2009?

[Jamastiene]

81. I, personally, do not like the rightward shift at all.

Progressive does not equal right wing. I've seen a lot of right wing talking points on here in the last year or so. I get the feeling we no longer need to talk about the FReepers any more. They are right here with us, sadly.

[QC]

88. Agreed. Freepers are not something "over there" anymore. n/t

[SergeyDovlatov]

85. I noticed shift to the right among some, justifying bombing of Pakistan using ...

borrowed right wing rhetoric