Has there been a MAJOR shift to the left in the political paradigm in the last ten years?

[Douglas Carpenter]

Last edited Sun Apr 27, 2014, 01:58 PM - Edit history (2)

It seems to me that back in the 90's, the New Deal was dead and buried. As President Clinton said, "The era of big government was over." Conservative Democrats who called themselves centrist, third way or "New Democrats" were about as far to the left as you could go in the mainstream of American body politic. And they did actually appear left-wing compared to the alternative. After September 11, 2001 things got expeditiously worse - far worse. And even "New Democrats" hated America according to a narrative that had become completely mainstream. Even cautious policies that would have been previously considered conservative had become defined as far left.

Since then it seems to me that a very positive but gradual shift to a more sound direction has occurred. Now there are voices well to the left of the third way that are working their way into the mainstream of political debate. Now the "liberals hate America" meme that had some sting in 2001 to 2004 has lost most of its audience. Now the awareness that income inequality is reaching the whole country and one is no longer immediately shouted down for pointing out the obvious.

Am I being delusionally optimistic or has their been at least in the terms of public debate an opening to progressive ideas that had largely disappeared in the 90's and were completely marginalized during the first term of the Bush Administration? Am I right in how I am perceiving this?

9 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	NO the range of discussion has not improved at all
	0 (0%)
	No, Actually the political paradigm has moved even farther to the right.
	7 (78%)
	There has been only a light improvement in the range of mainstream discussion. But not much
	0 (0%)
	Yes, I think you are right. There has been a very real shift in the range of discussion in mainstream political discussion
	2 (22%)
	A good whole wheat bread is rough in texture and has enough taste and richness to almost seem like a main course in itself.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Armstead]

1. I'm of two minds conflicted on this

AT LEAST today a lot of people are talking about issues like Income Inequality and the Corporate Takeover of America and the related Hollowing Out of the Middle Class and the Abandonment of The Poor.

And progress has certainly been made on the social "wedge issues" like gay rights.

But fuckall, Washington still becomes ever-more tied in with the Oligarchs. We still fall for phonies like President Obama -- who talks a good game but always delivers to his Corporate Masters.

The GOP is more batshit crazy than ever but they stand a good chance of getting even more power in November.

The system is broken, and we all know it. At lest more people knjow it now than in the delusional 90's and 00's.

But we keep allowing it to get even more broken, and we accept it passively.

I dunno.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. The 99% have moved left, the 1% right

Witness the TPP, the epic attempt at "responsible adjustments to strengthen Social Security", the War on Teacher's Unions, etc. but also we have more FDR Democrats elected into office now, that have been responsible for slowing down or stopping those sick things.

[Armstead]

3. We've always had a fair share of FDR democrats. But they are neutered by the "Centrists"

Hell, even Elisabeth Warren is pumping up that Corporate Shill Hillary these days.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Sen. Warren is doing no such thing. nt

[Armstead]

6. She's seeming a bit too cozy

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/elizabeth-warren-im-not-running-for-president/

Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good president?” Muir asked.

“I think Hillary Clinton is terrific,” Warren said. “We gotta stay focused on these issues right now.”


Though she did not directly answer whether Clinton would make a good president, Warren was one of 16 Democratic female senators who signed a secret letter to Clinton last year urging her to run for president in 2016.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Secret?

Why is it secret? National security issue?

It was characterized as a letter that "encouraged" her, and I'll bet Clinton's keeping it secret because it's more like a "get well soon" letter that jokes about a presidential run.

As to "terrific" - what could Warren have possibly said differently without seeming nasty? She didn't answer, then immediately moved the topic in a new direction.

[Kath1]

5. I think people are more open to progressive ideas.

I think it is becoming more and more obvious to people that dog-eat-dog capitalism and 'trickle down economics" aren't working for them. Just my experience over the past few years.

[vi5]

7. It only seems that way because of social issues.

Economically we are fucked because the point on the spectrum of mainstream allowable discussions and positions is much further right.

That's because we have too many Democrats who have bought into the "TAXES ALWAYS BAD!!!!" attitude.....too many buy into the idea of Wall Street as the benchmark of the economy.....to many have bought into the notion that our education system is bad and that privatization is the answer.....too many Democrats have sold out unions.

We need more, better democrats willing to go to bat and not just nominally be in favor of and vote for liberal economic ideas but more importantly to SELL those ideas and be willing to sign their name to those ideas and to convince people why those ideas are better, and to cite all the economic and historical data that SHOWS those ideas to be better.

The issue may not even be that we have less Democrats who will vote for liberal/left leaning economic ideas, but more so that we have so few that get out there and sell those ideas. Thats more important because the other side has been selling the shit out of their ideas for decades so much so that they have now become conventional wisdom.

It's no longer just enough to "support" or vote for our ideas, we need leaders who can sell them.

[BillZBubb]

9. I like your last line!

We need leaders who can convince voters that progressive economics is the only economics that really works for them and not against them.

Two problems I see with that thought: big money talks louder (it is speech after all) than constituents to our leaders. And, our leaders can't convince anyone unless they absolutely understand what they are talking about and BELIEVE it themselves.

I wish I knew the solution. Piketty's "Capital" may help our leaders understand and make the case. All of economic history is on our side.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. This. n/t

[BillZBubb]

10. Not much movement in my estimation.

The only significant movement leftward has been on gay rights. But on other issues like race and poverty and abortion rights, we have started moving backwards. Immigration is still in a rightist holding pattern. Public support for public action against climate change is decreasing. Same for necessary gun restrictions.

In the economic arena, everything that is still going on is happening on the right's turf. Union busting is flourishing with public approval. Both parties support "austerity" to a large degree. Both parties support an ever expanding defense budget to a large degree. Even top Democrats hint that Social Security and Medicare "reform" is on the table.

Most of the public still believes business is more responsible than government. And that government should let businesses do what they want.

The fact that the republicans continue to hold the house of representatives should tell you that the country has not moved to the left in any meaningful sense. The rightist paradigm still rules the land.

[JEB]

12. Occupy supplied the only slight shift leftward and

that was stomped flat.

[Make7]

13. I usually buy 100% whole wheat bread. ( n/t )

[Wounded Bear]

14. I voted for "light improvement"...

I do not think there has been a real shift to the left. The improvement seems to me to be that we have at least slowed the headlong rush to the right a bit.

but much more needs to be done to actually generate any leftward movement, which is badly needed.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. I think the people have pretty much stayed where they were. -

It is the Politicians and the People of Power who have shifted sharply to the Right and because they control so much of the media and information it makes it appear that the people have also shifted right with them.

[TheKentuckian]

16. I think matters are on the whole, worse.

Not to say there have been no improvements in any areas, just that taken on the whole we are moving in the wrong direction structurally and systemically.

[Eleanors38]

17. Some lefty discussion simply due to boredom...

Hearing RW crap 24-7, and the droning "comebacks" of DemoCentrists has to be spiced up from time-to-time, like having Dr. Kavorkian on at 2 a.m.

The bigger question is when, how, IF the "left" will become a player and force in its own right. Currently, it is not.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. kick

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. What I see is a lot of discontent with politics-as-usual rather than right/left movement.

People have grown weary of incompetent, corrupt, government by feather bedding politicians whose only aim is to keep getting elected.

Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote,
He's a-runnin' for office on the ballot note.
He's out there preachin' in front of the steeple,
Tellin' me he loves all kinds-a people.
(He's eatin' bagels
He's eatin' pizza
He's eatin' chitlins
He's eatin' bullshit!

Bob Dylan

[MisterP]

20. yes and no: the party's still yoked to Wall Street et aliis (what, y'all think this is a new thing?)

but its means of keeping power have weakened: now when people say that Nader caused Iraq and Lebanon--yes, otherwise-rational people still stroke out when they see his name, but enough people now know who Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris are; "the lesser evil" and "we'll fix it later" are now seen as the obvious punchlines that they are--the party's gloss it got with Ken Starr and the principled Midwestern senators has faded well away by now

[winter is coming]

21. Very little if any movement among party leadership or pundits.

Ordinary people is a different story.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. I tend to agree

[socialist_n_TN]

23. This^^^^^^^^^

Got to look at polls on issues rather than self-identification. Those polls show that regular people ARE much more to the left than the politicians.

[reformist2]

24. The public has shifted considerably leftward, and the lapdog pols are scared ****less.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. I think that is a fair statement

[Prophet 451]

26. Really, it's just coming back toward the centre

The Reagan revolution pulled teh "centre" of political debate far, far to the right. Clinton was responding to that and so is Obama, by trying to pull it back towards where the centre used to be. But I think teh political atmosphere is still very much to teh right. Witness how many people think Obama is a socialist for proposing what were Republican ideas (i.e. most of teh ACA, cap-and-trade).

[bananas]

27. Even Obama says he'd be a moderate Republican in the 80s and that Nixon was more liberal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101793318

Obama: I Would Be Considered Moderate Republican In 1980s - ABC News

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/02/03/obama_in_a_lot_of_ways_richard_nixon_was_more_liberal_than_i_was.html

Obama: "In A Lot of Ways Richard Nixon Was More Liberal Than I Was"

And it wasn't hyperbole - Chomsky, Alterman, and others have all said the same thing:

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/noam-chomsky-obama-would-have-been-called-moderate-republican-recent-decades

Noam Chomsky: Obama Would Have Been Called a ‘Moderate Republican’ in Recent Decades

http://billmoyers.com/2012/04/19/moyers-moment-2012-eric-alterman-on-how-liberal-president-obama-is/

Eric Alterman on How Liberal President Obama Is

ERIC ALTERMAN: Because as a society, we've moved incredibly further to the right, since Roosevelt's time. So that Richard Nixon is more liberal than -- personally, not, but as president -- he's more liberal than Barack Obama. All of the plans he put forth. He (Nixon) was more liberal than Bill Clinton. His health care plan was a better--

BILL MOYERS: Richard Nixon?

ERIC ALTERMAN: Yeah, oh, yeah.

And this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=967422&mesg_id=974360

Reply #119: Obama is so right-wing, he wouldn't be allowed to post here on DU

Obama: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4422945&mesg_id=4422945

Skinner: "We expect all of our members to support equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. That includes the right to marry. ... If you are opposed to gay rights, you are a homophobe. Don't share that particular point of view here or else you're going to get banned. You've been warned."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1324374&mesg_id=1324374

[vi5]

29. On gay rights

It's really hard to think of a more craven political move than his sudden switch to support for gay marriage, after all the heavy lifting had been done by other people, and waiting until it was abundantly clear that support was the safe political issue. And then the victory laps him and his supporters even more so took giving him any semblance of credit? Pathetic.

I won't deny that his support shifted the needle maybe a point or two, but the degree to which he waited until it was absolutely safe to do so, and the way he does that on so many issues is what really irks me about him. That's not what a great or even good leader does. They lead they don't follow.

[Warpy]

28. Rank and file have moved slightly to the left

simply because more people are noticing how insane the right has gotten.

Party bosses keep trying to shove both parties farther right. In the Democratic Party, having those Blue Dogs lose elections just tells them the party needs to play to the right. I have no clue what will wake them up but I sincerely hope something does, and soon. Either that or there has to be a big enough rebellion in party ranks to get rid of them, throwing the Koch money back into their piggy faces.

(Yes, Koch money funded the DLC and there is no reason to doubt it has continued flowing to conservatives at the top)

[Scuba]

30. Please remember that "voices well to the left of the third way" can still be right of center.