• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Have the extremes fully taken over?

Have the extremes fully taken over?

  • Total voters
    58
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I just said that :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, just clarifying that Dem centrists are indeed right leaning specific to the economic axis, largely because that's where their sponsors/donors want them to be. Also providing an important basis of comparison vs the rest of the world to put where they stand in perspective.

I do disagree that we'll only have a slight and partial reversion to the mean though, unless the progressive wing really drops the ball; thus far they've been doing an excellent job for a segment of the party that has only had any kind of power/influence whatsoever for all of 2 years since 2016. Remember, it took the New Dems about 15 to convincingly take control of the party.
 
Surrealistik said:
Yeah, just clarifying that Dem centrists are indeed right leaning specific to the economic axis, largely because that's where their sponsors/donors want them to be. Also providing an important basis of comparison vs the rest of the world to put where they stand in perspective.

I do disagree that we'll only have a slight and partial reversion to the mean though, unless the progressive wing really drops the ball; thus far they've been doing an excellent job for a segment of the party that has only had any kind of power/influence whatsoever for all of 2 years since 2016. Remember, it took the New Dems about 15 to convincingly take control of the party.
Click to expand...

You're spot on.
Glad to know that others here understand what's been happening, and what is starting to happen, and have a proper and rational perspective on it.
It helps neutralize the tsunami of hand-wringing screeches about impending communism coming from the far-Right corner.
 
Politicians are a direct representation of the people who vote for them.

People (voters) are the problem.
 
radcen said:
Most of us have heard the expression, "Move to the left/right in the primaries, move to the center in the general election."

Basically, historically, primaries are decided by the more extreme voters of each party, the die-hards, those less willing to compromise, single-issue voters, and so on, while the general election is more watered down and moderate/swing voters usually have more impact. (Plus, once the extremes of each party have selected their candidate, they're kind of stuck with them. You know they're not going to the extreme of the other side.)

This has been time-tested since before I was born. But... is it still? Is this still a good strategy for a high-level politician, or have the extremes pretty much taken over and it's more a matter of which party has more extreme voters?

Is the conversion to the Dark Side complete?
Click to expand...

....No, but also there is no hope of improvement. Trump is, for all his many - many - faults, not really an "extreme" conservative. Policy-wise, he's a pretty moderate conservative, if not downright Big-Statish (two caveats: Judical appointments, where he has negated his own policy preferences by turning the process over to the Federalist Society, and Immigration, where he's more solidly conservative than the Moderate crowd).

He's just an angry child.


On the left, anger at Trump being Trump does seem to be pushing the extremes to greater power. We'll see if that means that extremists pick up the nomination for 2020, or just the Craziest Person In The Room, as happened to the GOP.



I would say that the Tribalists have taken over on both sides, and that there is probably no hope because fixing this would require someone with the courage to unilaterally disarm.
 
cpwill said:
....No, but also there is no hope of improvement. Trump is, for all his many - many - faults, not really an "extreme" conservative. Policy-wise, he's a pretty moderate conservative, if not downright Big-Statish (two caveats: Judical appointments, where he has negated his own policy preferences by turning the process over to the Federalist Society, and Immigration, where he's more solidly conservative than the Moderate crowd).

He's just an angry child.


On the left, anger at Trump being Trump does seem to be pushing the extremes to greater power. We'll see if that means that extremists pick up the nomination for 2020, or just the Craziest Person In The Room, as happened to the GOP.



I would say that the Tribalists have taken over on both sides, and that there is probably no hope because fixing this would require someone with the courage to unilaterally disarm.
Click to expand...

As a progressive that is part of the camp routinely tarred and feathered as 'extremist' (but again, is generally considered left of centre in the rest of the developed world) per the ridiculous US Overton window, I'm not so sure that Trump anger is really the motivating force in my camp, or a major source of power so much as it is policy people largely agree with (MFA, money out of politics, universal post-secondary, etc). As a rule, centrist Dems flog Trump hatred as an excuse/imperative to 'unify' lest he and his people remain in office... but under their leadership of course, even when it means not getting the policies we want. On the whole, it probably improves turnout/electoral motivation for the left overall, not specifically for progressives.
 
Surrealistik said:
As a progressive that is part of the camp routinely tarred and feathered as 'extremist' (but again, is generally considered left of centre in the rest of the developed world) per the ridiculous US Overton window, I'm not so sure that Trump anger is really the motivating force in my camp, or a major source of power so much as it is policy people largely agree with (MFA, money out of politics, universal post-secondary, etc). As a rule, centrist Dems flog Trump hatred as an excuse/imperative to 'unify' lest he and his people remain in office... but under their leadership of course, even when it means not getting the policies we want. On the whole, it probably improves turnout/electoral motivation for the left overall, not specifically for progressives.
Click to expand...

I used to think much the same. Then 2016 happened, and I started taking seriously the polling which suggested that majorities of both parties were willing to support the others' platforms, if they were told it was their own.
 
cpwill said:
I used to think much the same. Then 2016 happened, and I started taking seriously the polling which suggested that majorities of both parties were willing to support the others' platforms, if they were told it was their own.
Click to expand...

I mean, when those ideas are presented in a party agnostic light, the support still remains high; I believe MFA as an example, last polled at 70%, with 58% support among Republicans per a party agnostic survey. I'm not saying by the way, that anti-Trump sentiment doesn't benefit the progressive movement at all, but I don't think it is foundational or core to its rise in stature.
 
Surrealistik said:
I mean, when those ideas are presented in a party agnostic light, the support still remains high; I believe MFA as an example, last polled at 70%, with 58% support among Republicans per a party agnostic survey.
Click to expand...

Sure. Until people are told that it means their taxes increase, in which case support across the board plummets. And, when they are told single-payer means the government will be taking over their plans, it plummets even more.

Free Stuff is always popular. Stuff That Costs Money And Replaces Other Stuff We Could Have Had much less so.





But that's not really what I was talking about - I apologize if I was unclear. I mean that Democrats, when polled, will support Republican party platform if they are told it was Hillary (or Sanders', or whomevers') idea, and visa-versa for Republicans.





I'm not saying by the way, that anti-Trump sentiment doesn't benefit the progressive movement at all, but I don't think it is foundational or core to its rise in stature.
Click to expand...

I think you're going to find it's more of a driving force in Democrat party politics than you hope. :(
 
cpwill said:
Sure. Until people are told that it means their taxes increase, in which case support across the board plummets. And, when they are told single-payer means the government will be taking over their plans, it plummets even more.

Free Stuff is always popular. Stuff That Costs Money And Replaces Other Stuff We Could Have Had much less so.
Click to expand...

The whole 'raising tax' qualifier is prickly though, and it depends a great deal on how you frame it, the assumptions in terms of final cost (which are all over the place; the 32 trillion over 10 years figure being the high end), and thus how much taxes must increase.

It is easily possible to specify the cost in ways that spike the idea, or keep its support largely intact, and how you do that generally depends on where the poll taker's lean is (or the lean of the contracting organization). Nonetheless I very much doubt that in most good faith representations of the cost, you would lose more than 20% support overall, particularly with support continuing to increase.


But that's not really what I was talking about - I apologize if I was unclear. I mean that Democrats, when polled, will support Republican party platform if they are told it was Hillary (or Sanders', or whomevers') idea, and visa-versa for Republicans.
Click to expand...

I understood that; what I mean is that these core progressive ideas are very popular regardless of how you frame their origin, and thus their clear and inherent appeal can be said to be a major cause of the rise of progressivism.


I think you're going to find it's more of a driving force in Democrat party politics than you hope. :(
Click to expand...

Well it is absolutely a driving force in Dem party politics overall, there's no dispute there. However, as stated, I just don't think it is core to the rise of progressivism in particular; that has far more to do, in my experience and estimation, with unpopular candidacies among both parties, policy, and concerns about corruption and money in politics/apprehensions about representation, the country's trajectory and the status quo.
 
cpwill said:
I used to think much the same. Then 2016 happened, and I started taking seriously the polling which suggested that majorities of both parties were willing to support the others' platforms, if they were told it was their own.
Click to expand...

It is almost a law of nature for any group of people that the extremist rise to the power of leadership.

Everybody is wearing their team jerseys it seems. The animosity is full tilt now between both sides and it would almost take an invasion by a foreign army to ever unite us.


The so call Wall Debate was so mishandled I don't even no where to begin. With this polarization there is no way to predict the outcome of this game of chess.
 
ryzorsden said:
You can go ahead and discredit Obama as an intellectual all you want. His credentials are there. You are foolish for even attempting.

But it's ok, right leaning people tend to discount intellectuals because they couldn't even get a job as a janitor at the schools Obama attended and taught at, let alone even get accepted to attend.
Click to expand...

who would that be? I have a question that Obama supporters never want to answer? why has Obama kept his undergraduate record a closely guarded secret?
 
Vadinho said:
I cannot understand how anyone can consider any Democrat in government to be radical or extreme. The right though has become the John Birch Society which at one time was considered extreme even by conservatives. This false equivalency game needs to be exposed for what it is, total bull. There are no radical liberal officials in positions of power today in the federal government. All they are trying to do is defend what has been our way of life since FDR.
Click to expand...

when one is a marxist, a guy like Clinton looks very right wing. what is the way of life you are describing: sucking on the public teat? permanently attached to the federal umbilical cord? What part of that way of life is Trump or the GOP threatening?
 
TurtleDude said:
when one is a marxist, a guy like Clinton looks very right wing. what is the way of life you are describing: sucking on the public teat? permanently attached to the federal umbilical cord? What part of that way of life is Trump or the GOP threatening?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone other than a total nutjob would consider Bill Clinton anything but a moderate.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I don't think anyone other than a total nutjob would consider Bill Clinton anything but a moderate.
Click to expand...

well a marxist comes close to being a total nut job. to the far left-Bill is pretty right.
 
jbander said:
Trump wasn't even a right winger till he changed thinking he could con the right easier , boy was he right , now that he is in ,he is as far right as they get. His whole presidency is dominated by hatred and the far right is also. So he can wear the ultra patch.
Click to expand...

I think the centrists in the GOP have lost - for now. How far right the party has really gone depends on how easily it forgets Trump once he's out.

The battle for the Dems is now truly underway, with a new insurgent left wing representatives vying for power with the more traditional center. But whereas the red-hat brigade is more of a personality cult based around emotions (fear and anger), the Democrat left is actually based on socio-economic ideology. This gives it room to moderate and accommodate, much like leftist parties in Europe.
 
Black Dog said:
So no "Democrat in government" is "radical or extreme" because they just "defend what has been our way of life since FDR?" I would have to say that view is pretty extreme.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand. I know that is stark. That is direct. But that is reality. What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back. It is not going to happen on our watch.”

Barbara Lee: Called for a $26 minimum wage so that “people . . . could afford to live in areas now where they cannot afford to live” and “you would increase diversity in certain communities where you don’t have diversity anymore. You would have economic parity.”

Bernie Sanders: Said the VA provides “very high quality health care, period” and that the shocking scandals surrounding it were traceable to “a concerted effort to undermine the VA” led by the “Koch Brothers and others, who want to radically change the nature of society.”

Do I really have to mention the antics of Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

There is enough radical and extreme coming from Democrats and Republicans to choke a camel.
Click to expand...

This is your proof? Wow.
 
TurtleDude said:
when one is a marxist, a guy like Clinton looks very right wing. what is the way of life you are describing: sucking on the public teat? permanently attached to the federal umbilical cord? What part of that way of life is Trump or the GOP threatening?
Click to expand...

If any post proves my point it is this one.
 
Vadinho said:
If any post proves my point it is this one.
Click to expand...

as does yours for mine. what exactly has Trump done to affect your way of life?
 
Vadinho said:
This is your proof? Wow.
Click to expand...

I don't expect political hacks to have real arguments. They usually make a quick comment that means relatively little. They don't refute EVIDENCE with links and think their emotions somehow are evidence of, well nothing.

You have a good one.
 
radcen said:
Is the conversion to the Dark Side complete?
Click to expand...

With the Republican party, it certainly is. The Democrats nominated Obama twice and then Hillary Clinton. Joe Biden is currently a favorite pick for 2020. Even with Bernie, Warren, and AOC, it would be kind of ridiculous to call them extremists. Their ideas are pretty much on par with most modern industrial nations at this point. An American Moderate is actually closer to being a right-wing extremist in most of Europe at this point.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
The thing is, the Dems kept moving gradually more to the Right over the last few decades, so any so called "extreme" candidate, if they were to get picked and they were to actually win, STILL wouldn't be able to implement any kind of wholesale extreme agenda.
For instance, if Bernie HAD won the election, there's no way he would have been able to implement any kind of actual "socialism". He'd have been lucky to get maybe one piece of signature legislation through, perhaps healthcare, maybe expanded college subsidies and that's about it.
He would have had to work with the "Conserv-A-Dem" Blue Dogs, Third Way, DLC et cetera, in order to get any traction on anything.
So the net result would have been he would have pushed the Democrat Party a little bit back past the center and slightly left and that's about it. And it's clear that's about the way it is now, too. The Democrats have their center, their center left and they have a small and very vocal progressive wing but in the end there isn't enough of a progressive majority to swing the party to an extreme position.
So, that's not "turning the country socialist", it's just a Democratic Party course correction a little ways back more towards what it used to be.

All that having been said, if we keep seeing a concerted push further and further to the Right, it might trigger the creation of a progressive majority as a response.
And still, given things are what they are, in the end we'd still only see a somewhat mild shift to the center left anyway. This country's economy hummed along remarkably well during the FDR New Deal and in the few decades that followed, so it's not like the sky is falling. Perhaps we should revisit some of that.
That's just my 2 cents but I did grow up during that era.
Click to expand...
Bernie is in no way a socialist , even when he says he is, he is referring to being a democratic socialist. The Nazi's used the term socialist in there party name National Socialist German Workers party , they hated socialism with a passion. There is no socialism in this country, unless we use your definition of socialism and if you are from the right , every single one of you seem to have their own definition of both socialism and communism. We won't use your definition though because it already has a definition and that definition makes it a joke every time the right wing uses it , as a insult to democrats. It's not a insult it's simply showing their lack of knowledge. I'll ask you one question. Have you ever heard anyone say in this country that they thought all businesses and sale of their products should be owned and operated by the government. I haven't ever heard anyone saying that. Socialism was created as a opposition/protest to capitalism. So the goofballs that are trying to make socialism fit in a capitalism are insane. The prime position needed to make or break whether it is socialism or not. Is that the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. This is a master tenet without which you have no socialism.
 
MrWonka said:
With the Republican party, it certainly is. The Democrats nominated Obama twice and then Hillary Clinton. Joe Biden is currently a favorite pick for 2020. Even with Bernie, Warren, and AOC, it would be kind of ridiculous to call them extremists. Their ideas are pretty much on par with most modern industrial nations at this point. An American Moderate is actually closer to being a right-wing extremist in most of Europe at this point.
Click to expand...

Again, the habitual or willing failure of people to comprehend and appreciate that 'moderate Democrats' are actually staunch right wingers per any meaningful international vantage, and that the Overton window/political frame of reference of the States is absurdly skewed to the economic right, never fails to astonish and exasperate me. Definitely a Mugatu 'I feel like I'm taking crazy pills' sort of situation.
 
washunut said:
I agree with almost you stated above. My one exception is the electoral college. The reason for this is not partisan,but the belief we truly are a nation of 50 states. Same as the reason we have a senate made up of two senators regardless of the population size of the state. If we were to get rid of the electoral college would in my mind undermine the reason for having something called states.
Click to expand...

You make a good point. But smaller states already get disproportional representation in the Senate, the most powerful chamber of our government.
 
TurtleDude said:
who would that be? I have a question that Obama supporters never want to answer? why has Obama kept his undergraduate record a closely guarded secret?
Click to expand...

Why hasn't Trump released his tax returns?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom