There is No Left
I think we have a problem in this country. It’s a misperception that somehow, politically, we’ll meet in the middle.
I think people want that, on the whole. They want compromise. But there can be no compromises between the Left and the Right on the political spectrum.
That’s because there is no Left.
There are no Socialists. No Communists. Hell, there are barely even any true Democrats remaining. Not when it comes to strong negotiating tactics on any issue. Not of any substance, anyway. Not on a federal level, and certainly not on the state level.
But there is no “agenda.” No “left-wing conspiracy.” Hell, sometimes I wonder if there’s any organization on the left, let alone a conspiracy.
There are mostly Centrists, and there are Republicans. And then, to the right of them, there are Tea Party Republicans. And then, to the right and south of them are the Libertarians. And that end of the spectrum controls the political discussion, everyday.
If there was a Leftist Party in this discussion—a truly radical, Socialist Party like the one I keep hearing Barack Obama is the leader of— then the health care debate would have started with the more-Socialist idea of the government handling health care completely (single-payer), and then the debate would have compromised with a public option for citizens.
That compromise is mirrored in almost every aspect of our society: you can pay to send your kid to go to private school, or you can rely on the government option of public school; you can buy a book at the bookstore, or borrow it for free from the public library; you can hire a private security detail for your home, or rely on taxpayer-funded police.
But that is not how the health care debate ended. That’s because the overwhelmingly-centrist Democratic Party—most notably Barack Obama—startedthe discussion with the public option and settled for some sort of government-monitored… private club of insurance groups that... like… have rules about pre-existing conditions, or… something.
That’s not a centrist compromise in keeping with our societal norms. And it certainly isn’t the mark of some dangerous, destructive, Satanic, radical politican hell-bent on pushing an agenda outside the norm. That’s a right-leaning solution (which, somehow, is still not good enough for the current GOP). And we got there because there is no Left to start the debate.
Take a second look at the rekindled abortion debate. A truly radical Leftist approach would be the government choosing to dictate to its citizens far-reaching parameters of a pregnancy (like China’s one-child approach). A similarly radical approach might use a system like eugenics, where an intelligence test is given to the mother before she is permitted to have a baby, and sterilized if she is deemed unfit. This is the kind of thing we joke about when Snookie gets pregnant. No one has considered this seriously since the 1930s—and thankfully so. But that is about as far left as you can get on that topic.
On the other hand, a hard-right stance on abortion would be the outlawing of all abortions, including the classification of fertilized eggs as an abortion, and forcing rape and incest victims to have babies; and this is happening. This movement is called the “personhood movement.” There are currently several states considering or passing “personhood” legislation today. And that is what we are now talking about, constantly.
So this discussion is being run by the Right; not the center, and certainly not the non-existent Left.
Even something as basic as regular ol' traditional Democratic ideas—regulations for Wall Street and arresting the criminals that led to a collapse of our banking system, promoting (not merely defending) unions, slashing the military budget, strengthening public schools instead of pushing charter schools-- these are basic tenets of the now-invisible Democrats. And those things are not happening.
Look, if President Obama was the dangerous, radically liberal, war-on-religion-and-freedoms pariah Republicans claim he is, wouldn’t we have seen something utterly magnificent by now? He’s had three years to try something truly, inconceivably Socialist. If he were really someone who warranted (the politically incorrect)comparisons to Hitler and Stalin, he’s completely underachieving. Bush eroded liberty in the name of fear and started a war on a lie. If Obama were even remotely that effectively radical, he would have sent you a government-issued pair of briefs with “I HEART JIMMY HOFFA” written on the ass and made you wear them to the job he assigned you laying gravel at the OBAMA-RAMA Drive-In Theater.
Anyone actually who believes the Democrats, circa 2012, are engaging in radical, Socialist behavior is living in a paranoid fantasy world brought on by boredom and the delusions of Fox News. Message to the Right: the only reason Mitt Romney has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning this election is because educated liberals are vastly underwhelmed by the same “dangerous leftist agenda” that keeps Glenn Beck’s pillow wet with tears at night.
So how did there get to be this weird, pervasive attitude that Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the Democrats are part of some radical agenda? Where did we get this illusion of a far-left-anything?
It’s really a question of motivation and message. By noon on any given day, radical Republicans have been up for six hours destroying the planet via draconian legislation aimed at rolling back the rights of every demographic imaginable (save white men), and then getting the media on their talking points (and then pretending the liberals are “running the media”). By noon, fair taxation that 72% of Americans favor becomes “class warfare.” By noon, the Right has taken the aforementioned mediocre Health Care Bill and turned it into “Grandma’s Death Panel.”
Meanwhile, at that same hour, Democrats and Liberals have just rolled out of bed and begun taking notes on the best jokes to write about how the Republicans got up too early.
Because the Democrats only play defense.
Look at the popular right-wing media moguls: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter. All loud, angry, popular and motivating. They make the news themselves just by using hyperbole. The Left’s answer? Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher. And though these people are highly intelligent, they are all comedians, reacting to the Right.
So here is my message to any Democrats: Stop trying to reason with these people; stop trying to make fun of them; stop trying to psychoanalyze them.
Start proposing “crazy,” actually-socialist legislation; start proposing 75% taxation on the wealthy; start discussing single-payer health care; start proposing laws that say a family can only own one handgun and one hunting rifle; start sweeping, transformative legislation aimed at crippling oil companies in favor of green energy; and start considering even more, actually radical, agendas. Not because you necessarily believe in all these things, and not necessarily because these are things the country should do; but because sometimes in bargaining you have to make two wrongs make a Left. Do whatever you have to, and say whatever you have to, like they do.
Just kick your "asses" back to the left so we can all eventually compromise in the center.
Kate Pitrone
7:50 am on Monday, April 30, 2012
What you are actually saying is that the Left has become the center of American politics? I hope you are wrong. The "transformative" legislation you mention, if it all passes, would leave us transformed, radically, I say, into a nation restructured on socialist principles. Perhaps you have never read much about socialism, except the rants of those louder voices on the right. If you haven't, you are not alone. Not many people in America know enough history or economics to know socialism when it proposed.
I am sorry for you if you were expecting something magnificent in that direction from the president. He can only do as much as the American people in representation will allow. He's stuck with our politics and accountable to our politics, the center of which you don't seem to understand. Apparently, neither did he.
People do want hope and change. They just don't want someone's hope and change that will leave them with less individual liberty than they had before. That is, they don't want socialist change that will demolish their individual hope through larger and stronger government. Wherein either the Right or the Left seek that, I, for one, hope they lose both elections and the larger argument. Of course, I might be wrong about that. The next election will tell both of us what the center of American politics really is. I really hope you are wrong.
Lynda Zielinski
9:45 am on Monday, April 30, 2012
Curious. What does socialism mean to you?
tom m
4:23 pm on Monday, April 30, 2012
I am a democrat who will not vote for any democrat this coming election because of the extreme socialist platforn being taken by the party (taking over companies... forcing people to buy healthcare.... telling them what to drive.... ,how much to give.... and taking more from those who have more and making them give to those who have less ...telling parents what your kids are allowed to eat) that sounds like socialism or the democratic policy ...can you tell the two apart
Brandon Scullion
4:53 pm on Monday, April 30, 2012
I feel this has some relevance.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-11/news/29984054_1_federal-president-obama-debt
The Chart.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FGEXPND
Or this
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/19/446990/obama-bush-reagan-government-spending/?mobile=nc
With massive expansion of government comes a massive expansion of legislation. With a massive increase in legislation comes some serious infringements on our rights.
Lynda Zielinski
9:43 am on Monday, April 30, 2012
Yes Patrick,I agree. It seems the Republican party has made our Government into some sort of a devil. You would think our leaders got appointed by a despot instead of getting elected by us. This irrational fear is especially evident when it comes to discussions of health care. Our neighbor Canada and the European countries subscribe to it and they are democracies. If their health care system was so awful wouldn't they change it? People here talk of their fear of government 'death panels' but not at all about insurance company 'death panels' that have been in place for years putting caps on coverage, dropping people who get too expensive, etc. Yet they are preferable? In short this is a strange, irrational, fear driven time in our history. I don't know why.But I'm sure eager to see it end.
L Davis
9:54 am on Monday, April 30, 2012
Good article except for the "Personhood" movement is actually about stopping corporations from have the same rights as people. It refers to corporations using money as speech and backing their own, chosen candidates. Not abortion. You might want to do a little more research on that. Just sayin!!
Jack Kelly
10:26 am on Monday, April 30, 2012
"L Davis",
YOU need to do that research-thing you spoke of. Just sayin'
James Thomas
1:36 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Patrick,
it's sad to see you write pieces so devoid of common sense and so lacking in humor.
Phyllis Stager
7:59 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
I THINK I get it.... this presentation of rollicking verbosity is meant to be 'tongue in cheek'. Right?
Kate Pitrone
8:13 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Socialism (OED) : A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy. -- A pre-capitalist state of society in which things are held or used in common.
tom m
9:05 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
kate I think you are mistaken that is not a copy/paste of socialism thiat is a copy/paste of the obama doctrine ....please make a note of that
Kate Pitrone
8:15 am on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
tom m -- yes, and seems to be what Mr. Giusto is proposing as good government, as well. But apparently there is no Left or we are not allowed to make such connections. What we are noting as socialism in elected officials is their not taking a strong enough stance on policy for Mr. Giusto.
He's correct, below. Anarchists are not on the Left; they are in left field, though.
Brian
8:29 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Sad, as adults, we have to make personal attacks to try and get our point across. These are typical forum posts that should all be deleted.
Bob Smith
1:39 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
As should yours Brian, considering your name alone violates Patch's TOU.
Brandon Scullion
2:43 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
There are a lot of people who don't use a full name. There are two others posting on this blog.
Brian
11:30 am on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Okay, Bob Smith, maybe next time you can be more original. I've included my full name and have a picture.
tom m
3:22 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
if there is no left then what do you call the 5 occupy cleveland members that tried to blow up the bridge (dont bother denying it they were members)
Brandon Scullion
5:41 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/meet_the_senior_citizen_militia_members_arrested_in_georgia_bio_attack_plot.php
Ray H. Adams; Toccoa; 65
This kind of stuff is everywhere, in every corner. No one side has a monopoly on crazy.
Jack Kelly
7:02 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Q: ".... then what do you call the 5 occupy cleveland members that tried to blow up the bridge"
A: Morons (yes, with a capital 'M').
James Thomas
10:37 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
I call them Jack Kellys
Jack Kelly
6:43 am on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Oooh...snappy response, James.
Are you 12?
Oh yeah. That's right. Your still bitter because I called out your stupid backside weeks ago (which you have YET to back up) and further showed what a flaming uneducated right-wing tard that you are. So, this is all you're relegated to because, well, I cleaned your moronic clock. Man, it must suck to be THAT stupid. Hey, maybe you can be a "local voice" and tell everyone what it's like.
Until then, STHU and go watch more "Matlock" re-runs, Chump.
James Thomas
11:11 am on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Jack,
Oooohhh, whooooaaa, and no, I will not be silenced by you.
Patrick Giusto
5:41 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Tom,
I'm sorry. I'm not quite sure how to answer your question. Apparently your political expertise allows you to understand my writing and opinions better than I do. So, help me out here:
What, exactly, would you say is the connection you're seeing between my call for the legitimate, legislative and executive branches of our government to use a stronger bargaining posture and five self-proclaimed anarchist nutjobs trying to blow up a bridge? I fail to see the connection here. Did I say, somewhere in here, that Joe Biden should form an alliance with Tyler Durden from Fight Club and decimate credit card company buildings or something?
It's possible I wrote that and forgot about it. This thing is long, and it makes me tired to re-read anything but the title. Go ahead and quote that part for me so I can respond to the part your thinking of.
tom m
6:21 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Pat you wrote "That’s because there is no Left." now these 5 are occupy cleveland protesters (some of them are the orginizers) which speak for 99% of the country which would be the base you represent and the other 1% are as you say are the "radical Republicans " but pat all i am asking is do these 5 fall into the left or right of your thinking
Patrick Giusto
7:55 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
1) Again, when I say "there is no Left," I am talking about the people who make and sign the laws in this country. You're making a serious logical fallacy here. Of course there are citizens out there who are radical and leftist, but this blog isn't about them. I am talking about how elected Democrats are weak at bargaining.
2) We'd need to have a longer discussion about whether or not anarchists-- who believe in no government-- qualify as really leftist. There are differeing views on this in political science, but I think anarchy is about as far RIGHT as you can get. If you believe that anarchists are leftists, I'll disagree, but you're going to need to write that blog yourself.
3) I would also take issue with the idea that these anarchists-- organizers or not-- truly represent the 99%/Occupy Movement, who are CLEARLY basing thier protest on non-violence on the whole. I think you're making a leap in logic to think that, if you asked the vast majority of those who identify with the Occupy Movements whether or not these 5 individuals' actions truly represent their motives, they'd agree.
4) I never said the 1% are radical Republicans. Radical Republicans do not need to be a member of the 1% to support them. In fact, I would argue MOST radical Republicans are not a member of the 1%, which sort of baffles me.
5) I do not represent a base of anyone. I represent me. And sometimes I hide that with satire. I'm a complicated man, and no one understands me but my woman.
James Thomas
10:39 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Patrick,
You own these guys.
tom m
11:57 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
pat as you wrote Again, when I say "there is no Left," I am talking about the people who make and sign the laws in this country no correct me if im wrong but the elected officials represent those who elected them so the democrats and republicans reflect the views of their base so to put this to your point in your opinion are these 5 to the left or the right of Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders (both elected officials) and sanders being an admitted socialist which you claim does not exist as you wrote "There are no Socialists"
Gray Cooper
1:22 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
The main idea of this article is that Democrat politicians aren’t very good at their jobs, which is hurting the country. Democracy works because it requires compromise. Patrick clearly states that our goal should be to end up in the center, but we cannot do that if the debate starts there. I think individuals commenting on this blog should make sure they have an understanding of the article before commenting.
In other words, just because you have a reaction, doesn't mean you understand. Many of the comments made above display a lack of reading comprehension skills and/or an inability to follow the rules of logic. If your reaction to this article involves socialism, communism, or the Occupy Cleveland Movement, you are missing the point.
James Thomas
9:40 pm on Friday, May 4, 2012
The main fallacy of this article is that Progressive Democratic Party Ideas are being presented as the mainstream center and anyone opposing them are extremists. There are two valid, legitimate sides to the political questions of today and this is proved by the number of people on each side of the debate. That is the nature of Democracy.
Patrick Giusto
7:36 pm on Saturday, May 5, 2012
No, James. You're only half right. Part of the main idea of this article is that the Democrat Party's ideas are mainstream center; that much is true. But I never said that "anyone opposing (those ideas) are extremists." I am saying the MANNER in which that opposition occurs is extremist, because the Democrats are being labeled as radical Socialists when there is no proof that they are engaging in true, radical Socialism. You can (and do) oppose the Democrats all you want-- and you should. That is the nature of Democracy. It is the methods by which people undertake that opposition, in terms of rhetoric, that I take issue with. I rip on the Republicans almost weekly; but I never refer to them as Fascists, because I abhor that mindless, hyperbolic labeling (and because I actually understand Fascism).
James Thomas
5:43 pm on Sunday, May 6, 2012
Patrick,
when half of the body politic disagrees how can you assert "Part of the main idea of this article is that the Democrat Party's ideas are mainstream center; that much is true."? Progressive Democratic ideas are one side of a two sided debate, the LEFTIST side. Yes Virginia, there is a Left.
Gray Cooper
1:23 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Democratic* (typo)
Lynda Zielinski
6:47 pm on Sunday, May 6, 2012
We can't have a left because of the tea party. They won't compromise. They gag normal Republicans. They label all Democrats as extremists, or anarchists, or socialists, as we see here. President Obama had no where to go but to the center. When the Republican party purges itself of the tea,as it must, we will have a true left and right again.
tom m
8:24 pm on Sunday, May 6, 2012
yes and once the socialists are purged from the democratic party the tea party will not be needed
Troy McClure
10:46 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
And, too bad for you, there are no socialists in the Democrat Party. But there are plenty of uneducated people who like to use vocabulary they don't know the meaning of because they hear it on the radio/TV.
Troy McClure
5:38 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
James, you have no idea what a socialist is OR what it's like to live/be in a socialist society. You can stop this fantasy gig of yours that you know what you're talking about. You're just another right wing loon spitting out what other clueless right wing loons are saying.
You fools sound like the guy who took your girlfriend away in high school. You're still bitter.
Patrick Giusto
3:24 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
James M. and Tom M.,
Bernie Sanders IS a self-described Democratic Socialist, but he is also a self-described "Independent" in terms of his party affiliation (though he does caucus with the Dems). DEMOCRATIC Socialism is what our country has already; as I've explained, it is our norm. TRUE Socialism is more akin to what the French just elected as President. His platform is taxing the rich at 75%, dramatically increasing social spending, and creating thousands of state jobs. There is a massive difference. Barack Obama hasn't come close to that. Much the opposite, actually.
Secondly, this idea that somehow the Tea Party is bringing balance to the political spectrum is absurd. There are literally hundreds of self-identified Tea Partiers in, running for, or affiliated with, governmental offices under the Republican banner. There is no debate for that; nor is there any debate that the Tea Party is to the right on the political spectrum of traditional Republican values and having an influence on the GOP. In order for there to be a need to "purge" Socialists in order to bring balance back to the spectrum, someone would have to first show me all the self-identified true Socialists in the Democrat party. Even if I gave you Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi-- of which there's STILL barely any evidence to back up any of those three-- you'd need to make up a lot of ground before you could say there wasn't a hard right tilt to the current spectrum.
Tim Torrence
12:58 am on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
I must disagree. The standard model, although inaccurate, chooses to place communists and socialists on the far left and fascists and anarchists on the far right. If your supposition is to say we have no left in this country because there are no avowed socialists or communists in higher office then the opposite is also true. I have yet to find one avowed fascist or anarchist in higher office. If your supposition is to say the dialogue in this country is dominated by the right that is correct. As people age they tend to become more conservative with their views on life and young people simply do not vote unless they are pushed to do so. But in using the Tea Party as an example that our country is being pushed to the right you omit the fact that the current Presidential administration, the current majority leader of the senate and the past speaker of the house all hold positions diametrically opposed to the Tea Party. Saying there is no left simply because the current elected officials are not far enough left for you is disingenuous. Find me a fascist in the Republican Party and I will agree with you. Until then my own outgoing congressional representative Dennis Kucinich is a declared socialist and actively sought out the endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America. Howard Dean the once chairman of the Democrat Party regularly attends their conventions. One thing that should be made clear, it is far easier to campaign from the left, far harder to govern.
Patrick Giusto
12:04 am on Wednesday, May 9, 2012
James Murphy: while I appreciate your comment, I have no interest in "winning" these types of discussions. I am much more concerned with people seeing through rhetoric and talking points and having a meaningful, educated discussion devoid of thoughtless labels and unoriginal thoughts for the sake of partisanship. Sometimes I start these discussions with satire, sometimes with humor, and sometimes with a bit of my own angst.
But I always appreciate a good discussion, and I hope that you continue to read my blogs and comment. I also truly hope that one day you will present a case to me that I cannot deny, and I can return the favor. I hope that Tim and (other) James will attest that there are times where I have said to them, earnestly, that they have made some wonderful points. Thanks to all three of you.
James Thomas
1:21 am on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Thanks Tim T.,
I wish I could say it half so well.