What prevents America from becoming a totally left-leaning social democracy?

[MrScorpio]

- The right as too much money to use against us?

- The vast majority of American citizens don't know any better?

- Too many co-opted institutions?

- A secret government plotting against us?

What's your take on this... Why isn't the left in firm control in America and what can be done to change the situation?

[krawhitham]

1. Americans does not want to lean left?

Half the people right now think Obama is too left


face it America at this moment not does not want to lean left. I believe it is because the Dems are poor at getting their views across. People are lemmings and the conservative media/repugs are driving the message right now

[MrScorpio]

8. "Half the people right now think Obama is too left"

Some feel that way, and others feel that he's not left enough.

But besides him, who on the left is driving the message home the most effectively these days and what can be done to get the word out to more and more people to convince them otherwise that the conservatives are all wrong?

[Lord Magus]

27. Which perfectly illustrates the problem: most people don't have a clue what "left" is.

[laundry_queen]

34. +1 nt

[stillwaiting]

48. You mean the Dems are "poor at getting their views across".

They can't continue playing the Washington Generals to the Repubs Harlem Globetrotters time after time and expect the little man behind the curtain to not be exposed.

We have PLENTY of people on the left that could effectively put forth our values and EASILY expose the right wing for the piles of B.S. that it is, but these people aren't allowed to get their viewpoints across in our captured media very often. They aren't invited. We have "Dems" that are conservatives that get to represent the "Democratic" viewpoint frequently in the media, and there are not any liberal Republicans.

It's clear to me that the DLC/Third Way, etc. have successfully completed their mission. I'm sure they're pleased as punch right about now, and they're attack on liberals after the election was entirely predictable (and was by many here). We have to fight against them to retake the narrative. Somehow.

They are engaging in psychological warfare against liberals. They have been doing it for several decades now, and they are currently winning.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. Wow.....where to start?

Fear....misuse of religion....but mostly, greed. And the incredible effectiveness on propaganda on the masses. And mistrust of intellect....and...and...(I suspect that all through history it is a small progressive group that has dragged the masses kicking and screaming forward into progress!).

What makes sense to we as Democrats is utterly incomprehensible to those on the right, I believe, for any one or several of the reasons above.

[babylonsister]

3. The first three; it wouldn't be good for big biz. And people are

stoopid.

[The Straight Story]

4. Fear that people on the left will control people and their choices

same fear I have of the right leaning folks actually.

Only difference between the left leaning and right leaning folks is the god they choose when trying to control the lives of others. One is a money based (read health care, save the kids, etc) and one is a faith based god (read christian, jew, muslim, etc).

Both of those sides scare the heck out of me.

[eridani]

85. The difference between a liberal nanny state and a conservative one--

--is that the former tells you you aren't allowed to shit in the reservoir and the latter wants to peek inside your bedroom window and make you do sex "correctly".

[beforeyoureyes]

5. Because the left is wishy washy and wont hold its reps accountable when they sell them out

Oh noes!

We have to vote for the corporate media created changey candidate and not shake the earth with our outrage on being sold out.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

35. "until there is a reasonable chance of achievement"

What makes you think there will ever be a reasonable chance of achievement? If you have to do something again and again and again, and it fails and fails and fails, shouldn't that be a signal to you that your strategy is a failed strategy, and that it doesn't work (no matter how much you wish it did)?

[Greyhound]

39. Why not? The conservative positions you advocate have consistently failed for over half a century

yet I don't see any signs of your changing your MO.

It will be the conservative agenda that ends this Grand Experiment and brings disaster, not liberals.

You guys keep insisting that we "compromise", well sorry, been there, done that and it isn't happening any more. You are the ones that like republiks so much that you keep resurrecting them, so you deal with them. Good luck, Chuck.
:hi:

[BzaDem]

40. So you have no reason to assume there will ever be a reasonable chance of achievement with your

strategy, other than "why not?"

Isn't that a signal that you might want to re-examine your strategy?

This has nothing to do with advocating conservative positions. This has to do with electing the candidate that will move the country in the most progressive direction, given the choices available that have greater than 0% chance of getting elected.

If you have NO reason to think that enabling Republican victories will somehow move the country to the left (other than "why not"), then how is your strategy valid? Saying my strategy results in "failed policies" is no answer, since your strategy results in even GREATER policy failures. (See inauguration of Bush in 2000, hundreds of thousands of deaths resulting from Iraq war that Bush started, etc.)

Given that your strategy consistently results in greater policy failures than my strategy, isn't my strategy more likely to maximize progressive policy, by definition?

[Greyhound]

68. As always, you've completely missed the point that nearly everybody else understands.

There is no expectation that republik rule will move the government left, merely an acknowledgment that the Democrats won't either.

The vast majority of Americans don't care. They know full well that whichever bunch is in power, they are screwed. Only a quarter, maybe a third, of eligible voters even register. Why do you suppose that is?

It is incumbent on any party to earn the voters support. Neither of ours give two shits about us and that isn't going to change while the current system exists. So as we bounce back and forth between the non-choices the overarching agenda moves forward until it collapses. Along the way we might get a glimmer of hope every now and then, but as long as the parasites have the power to limit our selections to those they approve of nothing will change.

When it does eventually and inevitably collapse the window of opportunity will come again. Obama had the best chance in over three quarters of a century to head off that disaster off and he chose to punt.

[BzaDem]

69. Yet you completely miss the point that nearly everyone else understands:

Not supporting the lesser of two evils is ENABLING the greater of two evils.

We tried your strategy. Out came 2 wars, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and 2 Supreme Court justices that instituted Citizens United for a generation.

And what did you get in response? Did the Democrats move to the left to get Nader's vote? No. Kerry unambiguously supported the Iraq war. This makes perfect sense: of course Democrats will move to the right if they perceive they need to do so to make up for lost votes from irrational "progressives." For each irrational "progressive" they lose, they can raise the D-R margin by 2 by flipping an independent from Republican to Democrat.

90% of Nader voters came crawling back, because they couldn't take it anymore. You will similarly come crawling back to vote for whoever is nominated. It might take 4 wars, 4 more Supreme Court justices, millions of needless deaths (with 2-1 support for the new wars), etc, but eventually you will (whether you like it or not). It's not a question of "if:" it is simply a question of "when."

[Greyhound]

70. As you well know we have not tried "my way" in generations and when we did it created the greatest

rise in overall prosperity in our history and also made it possible to save the world. Unfortunately, the enemies of the people and disease stopped us before the job was finished.

It is your group's strategy of bowing and scraping to the parasites that yielded this disaster. From 1968 through today those you slavishly pimp have condemned millions to needless suffering and untimely death. This is nothing new to us upon whom your kind preys and the only reason you whine now is that it is going further than you thought it would and it is effecting you personally.

Frankly, I'd rather deal with an honest republik than your conniving, two faced triangulators. In that conflict we both know where we stand and can proceed, or not, from that point.

[BzaDem]

71. "We just did that through refusing to participate"

That is your way, by your own words. And that was tried in 2000, no matter how much or how loudly you claim otherwise.

"Frankly, I'd rather deal with an honest republik than your conniving, two faced triangulators."

So you would have rather had Bush than Gore, and the hundreds of thousands of deaths that came along with him?

[Greyhound]

72. Nice try...

:rofl:

[BzaDem]

74. Thank you.

When people can't answer easy questions about the implications of their own arguments, the non-answers speak for themselves quite nicely.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

81. "Everybody but you saw the answer." Everyone but the 86% of liberal Democrats who approve of Obama's

job performance.

"They also see you dancing away and spinning for all you're worth every time you do this."

:rofl:

You should look up the term "projection."

[Greyhound]

90. "I know you are, but what am I?"

Neener-neener-neener...:P
:rofl:

Argumentum ad populum is fallacious.

[quaker bill]

88. They are held accountable

but not by us. Except for a few places, when they vote truly left, they lose the next election.

We on the other hand do not back up our folks the way the right wing does. The right wing will support a candidate who compromises on occasion, but votes their way 60 percent of the time over a candidate who only votes for their side 50 percent of the time. They are usually far more pragmatic than we are.

As Alaska shows, they will write in a compromising center-right candidate as opposed to losing the seat to a democrat. We would never do this.

[merh]

6. Greed and Selfishness

It is just that simple

[Chipper Chat]

7. 1) Rush Limbaugh

2) Fox News
3) The dumbing down of Murca

[mix]

9. heavy question

I have a Marxian take on American and global history, which might be dubious here...but I think it has to do in great part with how the state, media, and popular culture are controlled by the financial elite. Their objective is to build consensus and cooperation among classes in order to further the interests of the oligarchy and this is done through media primarily (TV, radio, internet, movies, music etc). Institutions, though often in conflict, like the military, schools, and prisons all project authority and demand conformity. Our freedom exists in the narrow space that Hobbes called "the silence of the laws" not because our government ensures it, but because it can't control it.

It is undeniable that class conflict is very real in our society, however, the upper classes are able to win consensus and cooperation across class boundaries by controlling knowledge and information.

But there is always room for resistance.

[phasma ex machina]

83. The Doors Of Perception: Why Americans Will Believe Almost Anything

We are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever known. Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being shaped and molded; our very awareness of the whole design seems like it is being subtly and inexorably erased (link)

It's most enlightening to follow the links and read O'Shea's entire essay.

[enlightenment]

10. Attendent belief in

American Exceptionalism - liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire
and
the Protestant Work Ethic (Max Weber; can't really be reduced to a one-liner)?

Both reject - philosophically - the sort of social democracy to which you refer.

Just a thought . . .

[nessa]

43. +1

[PufPuf23]

11. Banks, industrialists, DoD, globalists, entrenched wealth, bought media,

authoritarian bureaucracies (including religious), crony capitalism, political culture), income and wealth distribution, and ignorance and inattention of the people for a start.

[rug]

12. GDP.

[leftstreet]

13. Affordable gasoline

Make it $20.00 a gallon tomorrow

[Trajan]

14. Elections ?

[political_Dem]

15. People in America still believe that liberalism is bad.

The RW has blamed liberalism for everything going wrong in society. Some in America believe this crap and raise their kids into Hitler Youth with the knowledge.

To make America right again, we need a de-Rovification of politics and the airwaves. Rove's perverse and anti-social personality has constructed an America too scared of its own shadow when it comes to permissiveness. He constructed an authoritarian paradise in which the patriarchy rules and the people can't take care of themselves. By creating a weak-willed society, it allows the true powers that be an easy path to get as much power and money as they can. It's a crying shame how the propaganda has molded total obedience under the falsity of being "fair and balanced".

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Large amounts of propaganda and corruption

depends on the year what leads.

[inna]

17. first, we're not even a real democracy.

second, we are the most thoroughly propagandized and controlled society in the (modern) world, even though most people are blissfully oblivious of that fact.

[David__77]

18. I don't know what left-leaning social democracy means now.

To me, "left-leaning social democracy ended approximately around the time of the SPD Bad Godesburg conference of 1959, when Karl Marx was formally condemned, and capitalism embraced as a social system. Since then, social democracy has been a formally left-wing tail of liberalism. I think I am more interested in non-social democratic socialist movements.

[Greyhound]

19. The successful lie that the totalitarian authoritarianism of the USSR, China, etc. represent

"the left". Half a century of ubiquitous propaganda can indeed warp a people into destroying themselves for the benefit of their enemies. We are living proof.

[KeyserSoze87]

20. The reason why America isn't moving to the left is because...

the "liberal" media won't shut the fuck up about the Teatard movement. Seriously, if Jon Stewart hosts a rally of a quarter of a million people, there is hardly any coverage at all. But if there is a Teatard protest of about 50 people, it's front page news. Seriously, these dipshits represent less than 1% of the US population. Nobody with any intelligence whatsoever cares about them and their stupid little protests. Sadly, as the recent elections have shown, many Americans are devoid of any intelligence, and are constantly brainwashed by the M$M into voting for the Repigs.

[moondust]

22. An interesting article on brainwashing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/myriam-miedzian/capitalism-uber-alles-how_1_b_775495.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. a cultural disconnect between today's American left and many working class Americans

Many working class Americans are religious and many are socially conservative. Even if they might be quite open minded regarding social democratic ideas, many view the left or what they see as the left as hostile to to their values.

The right has exploited this disconnect quite successfully by actively aggressively promoting single-issue/wedge issues such as prayer is schools, abortion, gay marriage and of course gun control.

The trend of the Democratic Party over the last few decades has been to abandon its New Deal/Great society legacy while also adopting what was once regarded as moderate Republican economics while also embracing to varying degrees relative social liberalism. This leaves many working class people without a strong reason to support what they see as the left - the Democratic Party. It is possible that more religious and socially conservative working class voters who are uncomfortable with what they see as the secularism and liberalism of the left to support a party anyway if they were convinced that this party would fight for them on bread and butter issues.

I look at how Sen. Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, is able to convince most rural socially conservative voters to back him even though many are not necessarily in agreement with his position on many social issues. He is able to communicate a sense of sensitivity for their more conservative values while keeping the emphasis on bread and butter issue that effect their daily lives. They know that come hell or high water Bernie will fight for them where it counts most.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. Paul Wellstone was able to do the same--a very left-leaning politician

who was loved by both the political left and the VFW, and he didn't gain that adoration by being wishy-washy.

[Kang Colby]

24. Our educational system n/t

[BeFree]

25. Eh?

What would a totally left-leaning social democracy look like?

[KillCapitalism]

33. Good question

I think most here would like to see a system similar to what Denmark or Norway have.

[mzteris]

26. ignorant people

with a sense of entitlement.

[flamingdem]

28. Greed, ignorance, family and corporate influence

all of which are difficult to overcome.

Let me add human nature, people like to have more than the other guy..

[joshcryer]

29. See: OP

[leveymg]

30. They keep assassinating our leaders, or just isolate and coopt them.

That's the steel hard repression that lies beneath layers and layers of effective soft control, such as the corporate media, the two-party system, credit cards, etc.

They're even able to convince many of us that these assassinations are just isolated acts of crazed lone gunmen or internal feuds within the Left. Now, that's what I mean by effective soft control.

[mmonk]

31. Money +media=message control.

That in turn controls the process.

[Taitertots]

32. Willful Ignorance

The vast majority of people I speak with have no idea what they are talking about 90% of the time. Especially when it comes to the economy.

What can be done? More like what can we do? Learn more for yourself, educate a child, tell someone the truth.

[Zoeisright]

105. Yep. Just plain old stupidity.

Too many Americans just don't know how to think or reason.

[pansypoo53219]

36. joe McCarthy

and hate media.

[LiberalAndProud]

37. Rush Limbaugh would be the first answer that leaps to mind.

He and his clones have loud voices and somehow their lies are either believed or ignored. It is hurtful and astonishing to see how effective the propaganda has proven to be. I am appalled that this is so.

[Hannah Bell]

38. because the rich own the country; they fund the "left," they fund the "right,"

they fund the media, they fund the ideas that they like, they create mass consciousness, they create our understanding of how the world works, our desires, our fears.

a false consciousness, & they own it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

41. mainstream political discussion in American pretty much ranges from the left-wing of Wall Street to

the right-wing of Wall Street. But actually challenging the role that big moneyed interest has in dominating the political structure and its consensus regarding the so-called "free market" is treated as something way beyond the pale; something to be relegated to the fringe of discussion.

If we take for example Mr. George Soros, given how things actually are it is nice that he supports many progressive causes with the weight of his resources and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity and I certainly deplore the outrageous anti-Semitic smears by a despicable character like Glen Beck. But there is no denying that Mr. Soros is one of the leading advocates and practitioner of the most reckless and irresponsible forms of casino capitalism - shifting billions into rabid currency and other financial speculation - enterprises that neither produce goods or services or create jobs - but instead create havoc.

[Hannah Bell]

65. yep. some cheer for billionaires when they fund something that's apparently

"good". but it's their inordinate power that creates much of the "bad" in the first place.

[ThomThom]

42. follow the money

we can not have democracy as long as money calls the shots

[Better Believe It]

44. Answer: The Democratic Party?

[RedCloud]

45. Keep them doped with religion and sex and tv

[rucky]

46. We don't have influence & we don't have enough resolve.

What gets you influence? Money & popularity. The money thing isn't really going to happen, so we need to work on popularity. It would help to have some strong leaders. It would help if we were more willing to follow in a unified fashion, but by nature I think we're resistant to lockstep and hold potential leaders to impossible standards then tend. We bounce around too much, from cause to cause. We all come up with our own solutions and don't really get behind any if they don't catch an immediate foothold or they don't have the blessing from the party leaders. Then there's the fact that we're intentionally marginalized every step of the way.

Then there's the resolve part: Our party leaders don't have strong resolve, and without a cohesive movement behind us, we may have a hundred small groups that display resolve in different ways but we rarely have one large one.

I don't think we're going to accomplish squat by working within the Democratic party. We need to pick something - a central issue, a simple message and a common directive - and commit to it no matter what. I don't think it's in our nature.

[old mark]

47. Many many years of propaganda. The "freedom" of the old West, the

independent proud American, the "god given liberties", all that shit that we all swallow since we become aware...it comes from our movies, books, TV, schools, political speeches from all sides. It is part of the great machine of business that fights government regulation in any form, from child labor in coal mines to the AMA fighting "socialized medicine" so that all doctors may become rich.

It is the bullshit legend of the USA that is so universally accepted it is almost impossible to fight...even our progressives are independent individuals.

It has been used to turn the people agaisnt their own best interests for generations.


mark

[Catherina]

49. Credit, saboteurs, collaborators and false hope of beating the odds.

[hobbit709]

50. A little of "All of the above"

[stray cat]

51. The lack of a dictatorship since the people clearly do not vote for it

[fascisthunter]

52. Ignorance and Apathy

this country will only be as strong as the two detriments allow.

Lol... that may be way too simplistic of an answer I'm sure. But if I had to choose just a couple reasons, I'd start there... they are the most obvious to me at least.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. The electorate.

Right-wing politics are *not* something inflicted on the American people from above, they're something they deliberately and knowingly vote for because a majority of them have right-wing political views.

It's an incredibly unpleasant thing to have to believe - the most prevalent, most comforting and most harmful myth on DU is that the problems of America are the fault of a small unrepresenative right-wing "Them" manipulating and imposing a largely liberal but (except for DUers) poorly-informed "Us" - but, sadly, it's the case.

[blindpig]

54. 100 years of red baiting....

The power of money, they got all of it.

The myth of the 'golden age', 1950-1975, when the working class got a little piece of the pie. They attribute this to the wonderfulness of Capitalism when in fact it was the result of two factors. First, the US was the only industrial power left standing after WWII, profits were ridiculous and crumbs were available. Second, there was the Cold War and the Soviet Union. Appearances had to be kept up, the superiority of the Capitalist system must be made manifest. Is it coincidence that the full bore aggressiveness of Capital cranked up just after the socialist east collapsed? Don't think so, ya might say that the American middle class was defended by Soviet tanks, and now they're gone.

[Hello_Kitty]

56. Too many have bought into the Horatio Alger bullshit myth.

They think someday they too will be rich so they want to keep tax rates low and have no estate tax.

[Swede]

57. Human nature.

Look at every democracy on earth. Pendulum swings left,then right,then back to left.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

58. Race and Ethnicity

Our racial and immigrant history has always prevented class identification.

Working class whites often see themselves as having more in common with rich whites than they do with poor non-white workers.

And everyone else tends to do the same within their group, whether out of nature or reaction.

Slavery had a lot to do with it, but being built on waves of immigrants this nation has always had intense ethnic competition for resources even in addition to our 'original sin' race problems..

[earth mom]

59. Why? The right wing propaganda of Faux News, CNN and MSNBC. People are being systematically

brainwashed by watching that trash.

I don't have cable, haven't had it for about 7 years and so don't watch cable news and am glad of it! But I did watch some for a few days a few months back and I was disgusted by how right wing ALL of it is. I already knew this to be the case, but it was really sickening to watch. I remember the days when the news was WAY more liberal than it is now and can totally see the difference.

I was disgusted, offended and pissed off at every turn when I watched that crap! It's even worse than I thought! :grr:

People need to turn it off and shut those bastards down!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

60. America and the media that programs us

We have a very ignorant country - most have no idea what is going on in the world
or in the US for that matter.

[Overseas]

61. Been watching "The Trap" series by Adam Curtis. Interesting perspectives

on how the cruel privatizing ideologies have taken root and grown.

Watching part 2 now on Google video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1087742888040457650#

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

62. Americans are idiots, especially those calling a CORPORATIST like Barack Obama

a socialist, communist, Nazi, etc.

[bluestate10]

63. The country is not more progressive.

Because progressives keep bailing conservatives out of messes that their political view would create if allowed to run it's course. Tax and spending policies are oriented toward supporting conservative leaning states with tax dollars collected in progressive state. My state is one of the most progressive in the union. We just re-elected an African American Governor, I think a first for our country. Re-elected him by a sizable margin. My state is one of the best educated in the nation and among the seven wealthiest states in the union. Our gap on the rest of the country is only growing larger as economic stagnation grip the rest of the nation.

How does the above relate to your questions. Simple. Educated people vote conservative at a smaller rate than less educated people. The more educated and well trained a state's citizens are, the more likely they are to vote for progressive governance. Edward Kennedy was a great Senator. Ted Kennedy stood for great causes like civil rights, energy independence and environmental protection. But on taxation and federal spending Ted Kennedy subscribed to the same ideology that Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and John Kerry subscribe to. That point of view is destroying progressive causes and making it possible for conservatives and extreme right wing politicians to avoid their days of reckoning.

The fact that a crazy right wing politician got over 30% of the vote for Governor of New York should be terrifying to any progressive. Why did a person that was obviously a terrible choice get as many votes as he did? New York is, like my state, one of the wealthiest and best educated. Massachusetts elected a republican Senator, who except for one vote has voted hand in hand with Mitch McConnell and against the best interests of the majority of the citizens of his state. We will deal with Scott Brown at the next election. But during the interim, democratic politicians must realize that having Massachusetts, California and New York, among others, sending their federal tax dollars off to support states that are becoming increasingly right wing and strident, only hurts the cause of democrats and specifically progressives in the long run.

I was called a "states rights" adherent by a respondent to a post of mine on why it makes sense for Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, most other remaining democrats in the House and Senate and President Obama to push for reducing the lists of responsibilities of the federal government and sending most responsibilities back to the state. States Rights were called by the very conservatives that I now do battle with as a way to deny some their citizens basic human rights. My proposal would keep enforcement of civil, ethnic, sexual rights squarely in the hands of the federal government. But our remaining politicians should fight to the end to allow the states to retain all except 20% of their federal tax dollars to support paying for their responsibilities. The policy would force the hands of southern and interior west conservatives, rip them apart and lead to the elections of democrats where democrats are vanishing. People, call me a Nazi if you want to. I will take every chance to push my argument that blue state Senators and Representatives are screwing their citizens by allowing the taxation and spending policies that favor red states to continue to exist. If allowed to continue, those policies will turn a blue state like New York, or California (a near miss) pink, then red. While you call me stuff, at least take a few seconds to ponder a point of view other than the one that you have become too comfortable with.

[Holly_Hobby]

64. Religion n/t

[hansberrym]

66. Reality... that is that most people are neither totally left nor totally right leaning

So when someone says lets turn totally left(or right), a good number resist.


I would say the left has controlled the House for most of the last 70 or 80 years, and it doesn't really ake sense to ask why not total control.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

[originalpckelly]

67. America's right leg is shorter?

:shrug:

[sally cat]

73. Endless media reports of the financial problems in Europe's social democracies.

[Odin2005]

75. Religion and The Senate.

[Blue_Tires]

76. if i had to narrow it down to one thing, i'd say big business

[Skittles]

77. all the things you mention, plus

look at how many DUers settle for crap in the name of the "progressive party" - they twist themselves into pretzel aologizing for absolute garbage - if they represent any sizeable portion of Democratic voters, no wonder we are in so much trouble

[JVS]

79. Our unwillingness to go all Khmer Rouge and break the back of the old culture.

[JanMichael]

80. Greed and decades of propaganda?

When I lived in Poland in the early 90's I met many people from Poland and Russia who expressed that while the Left propaganda was wildly lamented, and derided, that the West/US/UK Propaganda was far superior, ubiquitous, and we were effectively zombies. They were right. That would do it, right?

[AlienGirl]

98. We need to close the propaganda gap

Propaganda is like an axe: a morally neutral tool that can be used in the service of good or evil, depending on the user.

With good intent, one can wield an axe to build a house or clear a path. With bad intent, one can wield an axe to murder one's brother.

Similarly, while propaganda has been used by some with bad intent to murder their brothers, it also can potentially be used to build a culture of compassion and to clear a path to truth and justice. We just need to swing the axe, and swing it with precision, before an axe is swung against us.

Tucker

[kctim]

82. The US Constitution

A totally left-leaning social democracy is only possible with a huge government and our Constitution limits government and protects the rights and freedoms of individuals. This, along with not following proper amendment procedures, has created a divide between the people. A divide so deep that we concentrate on fighting amongst ourselves instead of for ourselves.

You can make excuses by blaming money, stupidity, Wal-Mart or the Bilderbergs, but the fact of the matter is that the American people are not yet ready to go from a country where the individuals are free to one where individuals are provided for by their government. IMO, we are about 20-30 years out from transforming our government into such a social democracy OR the war to stop it.

[eridani]

84. You're kidding right? Our government is vastly larger than the governments of all other developed

--countries. And don't try to say that the military and the prison industrial complex are somehow not "government".

It's true that the Constitution is a barrier to socialism, but only because of the extreme affirmative action for lazy slave holdera and conservative rural poeple that it embodies.

I don't see that we are freer than Europeans; quite the contrary.

[kctim]

93. Not kidding at all

especially seeing how you agree it is a barrier, no matter what excuses you may come up with.

Whether we are "freer than Europeans" or not depends totally on what one considers 'free.' I have spent over 10 years of my life in European countries and their little micro-managed life is NOT what I consider to be free. That is just my opinion though and I realize those who wish government to provide for them, see it differently.

Conservative rural and semi-rural people like to be left alone, urban people want things provided for them. Not saying one way is better than the other, just simply stating a fact. And because of that, a totally left leaning social democracy is not going to be embraced by the country as a whole.

[eridani]

94. Conservative and rural people are tax parasites on urban areas

Check the red state/blue state benefits received/taxes paid ratios. Eastern Washingtion has been one big anti-tax whine for years, but they expect the rest of us to keep paying for their water delivery infrastructure so they can keep pretending that they stand on their own two feet. Every Olympia legislative session some newbie Repuke files a bill mandating that all counties receive back from the state all of the money they paid in, and not a cent more. Then one of the senior Repukes advises him about the facts of life and it gets quietly scuttled.

I bet all the 44,000 people our health care delivery system kills every year would love to be micromanaged. That just comes from population density, and it's either that or a shooting war of each against all.

Our Constitution gives rural whiners the ability to insure that all of us pay for their roads, their water and their bridges to nowhere, and the power to make sure that the rest of the population gets a lot less in the line of public goods.

[laughingliberal]

99. +1000 nt

[kctim]

103. I know all about the ratio

and laugh every time I see people try to use it as you did. You do realize the difference between having a choice in paying for something you want and not having a choice and being forced to pay for something you do not want, right? You do realize that, because of population density, it would be the people in large urban areas who suffer the most if they don't allow themselves to be micromanaged? You do realize that people who place their rights ahead of dependency would rather die than give up those rights?

Our Constitution limits government and protects individual rights and freedoms. It was designed as such because individual rights and freedoms were believed to be at the top of the list of what was best for the "public good." It was designed to protect the individual from people wishing to use government to force their version of "public good" onto everybody.

Like it or not, THAT is what is making our tranformation into a 'left leaning social democracy' a slow one, and when you combine that with people who still believe in it VERY strongly, it is going to be a very slow transformation. It is NOT what thise country was founded on and people are not going to change overnight. And calling them parasites and whiners isn't going to make it any faster.

[dkf]

86. The majority of Americans don't believe we have a right to other peoples assets simply because they

Have more.

We pride ourselves on being able to support ourselves. We don't mind temporary safety nets but being permanently dependent on someone elses goodwill is anathema.

Our history is rooted in a dislike of excessive taxes, "taxation without representation" etc.

[laughingliberal]

100. Yes. They think that way until they find themselves disabled or widowed or taken out in a...

disaster. Of course, no one ever thinks that's going to happen to them. They're out there scraping for a living, just making it from payday to payday and, somehow, think misfortune only happens to others.

Nothing is funnier to me than a conservative who falls on hard times when they go looking for assistance and find out all this 'welfare' they've heard about all these years isn't quite the gravy train they've been led to believe it is.

Do they change their thinking then? Some do. Others decide there's no help for them because they're white and the Mexicans are getting all the money.

[ismnotwasm]

87. Capitalism mostly

And the complacency that characterizes a nation of privilege

[quaker bill]

89. Puritanism and the American Dream

There are two myths that underlie this. A near absolute faith in the Puritan notion that the moral among us succeed economically and that their success economically is proof of their high moral character. The corollary being that those who fail economically are morally lax in some or substantial ways. This goes hand in hand with the American Dream which suggests that those who are of good character and hard working can achieve any economic status they desire.

Both notions are patently false and have been for a very long time. However, the rare and occasional case comes along that the media jumps all over to reprove the myths. A more sober analysis, which is nearly never conducted, indicates that a massive element of chance played a dominant factor in a great many cases. Bill Gates happened to be the AV guy in the first California High School to have its own computer, so he learned how to program it. Random chance gave him a head start over his potential competitors. There was certainly plenty of hard work involved in his success, but getting there first proved quite important.

Lots of people work hard and never get anywhere. I would trust the morals of most waitresses I have worked with over any stockbroker I have ever met.

[OneGrassRoot]

91. All of the above. n/t

[strawberryfield]

92. The left sees America as they would like it to be

If there is one problem with the left, it is idealism. Too many of my progressive friends have a fantasy view of what America is really like. That is why cons end up winning a significant portion of the time. We try appealing to people’s compassion and better selves, and the cons appeal to people’s fears in and selfish interests. The cons are much closer to the way many Americans really think and feel. Look at who settled this country. A large portion of the people who came here didn’t show up because of their desire to share in some great social experiment, they showed up to get rich. They were individualists, not collectivists. Should we be astonished that many of their descendents are selfish and greedy? Until the left faces up to this and comes up with a constructive way to address it, America is going to continue to be a joke to the rest of developed world.

[laughingliberal]

101. I think people will wake up at some point. Not the way I wish it would happen but they will.

The problems with our system become obvious real fast when things start going wrong and right now things are going wrong for a lot of people. I think more people are realizing how much the banking and financial institutions have screwed us and the pain is moving up the scale.

The middle class and nearly rich are getting hit, now. As more of them fall into worse and worse circumstances, there will be a demand for fairness. Chances are it will be too late and we'll be living like Argentina in the 90's but I think then they'll see.

[denem]

95. Bad timing: 1946, the Republicans won the House.

Faced with the stresses of demobilization and the mood for change, Truman's Fair Deal was DOA, while in the UK for example, the same winds of change blew away Winston Churchill and the Conservatives. The UK welfare state was born, the Fair Deal, still born.

[bluetrain]

96. Belief in the metaphysical, education.

[AlienGirl]

97. Too much effective propaganda on the right, not enough on the left

On the left we've come to believe that "propaganda" simply means "lies" and is unethical. So we've surrendered the field of idea-salesmanship entirely, and left in the "propaganda" business only liars who don't care a whit about ethics.

Tucker

[Scruffy1]

102. radio and television

[NNN0LHI]

104. Because Republicans know that Americans can be frightened easily

And on top of that Americas generally like being frightened. That way when they become frightened they can have a Republican daddy figure talking tough to make them feel better.

The left and pretty much everyone else will jump right into the lap of a daddy figure like Bush when they get frightened to be told everything is going to be alright. Even if that same daddy figure is the one who's incompetence is what caused them to become frightened in the first place. Don't make no difference they will still love him.

And it works every time. And the Republicans know this too. Luckily for us so does President Obama.

There is your answer. That is just my opinion and it isn't pretty but I think its pretty accurate.

Don