How to build a house majority

[Blackjack200]

He fought for what was achievable. Again, if you look at DW-NOMINATE scores for the democratic majorities of 2008-09 they are vastly more moderate than the GOP majority today.

I think you can go down a rabbit hole arguing what was achievable, what the composition congress was, etc. etc.

The president was extremely influential in 2008 and early 2009, and the bottom line is he didn't push for UHC at all. I think there was a sense (and I include myself in this), that what we were going to get was far better than what existed before, so even if it wasn't perfect, it was a win, and there were not many people fighting for true UHC. In hindsight, it was a terrible mistake, and I think we need to be honest with ourselves about that.

Cuba sent agents and soldiers to Africa and its neighbors in order to destabilize and overthrow their governments so that more Cuba-friendly ones could be installed. That's how Che died, after all. As for Vietnam...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian–Vietnamese_War

Like I said: Every. Single. One.

From your linked article:

During the Vietnam War, Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge communists had formed an alliance to fight U.S.-backed regimes in their respective countries. Despite their open display of cooperation with the Vietnamese, the Khmer Rouge leadership feared that the Vietnamese communists were scheming to form an Indochinese federation with Vietnam as the dominant force in the region. In order to pre-empt an attempt by the Vietnamese to dominate them, the Khmer Rouge leadership began purging Vietnamese-trained personnel within their own ranks as the Lon Nol regime capitulated in 1975. Then, in May 1975, the newly formed Democratic Kampuchea, dominated by the Khmer Rouge, began attacking Vietnam, beginning with an attack on the Vietnamese island of Phú Quốc. In spite of the fighting, the leaders of reunified Vietnam and Kampuchea made several public diplomatic exchanges throughout 1976 to highlight the supposedly strong relations between them. However, behind the scenes, Kampuchean leaders continued to fear what they perceived as Vietnamese expansionism. As such, on 30 April 1977, they launched another major military attack on Vietnam. Shocked by the Kampuchean assault, Vietnam launched a retaliatory strike at the end of 1977 in an attempt to force the Kampuchean government to negotiate. In January 1978, the Vietnamese military withdrew because their political objectives had not been achieved.[clarification needed]

Small-scale fighting continued between the two countries throughout 1978, as China tried to mediate peace talks between the two sides. However, neither country could reach an acceptable compromise at the negotiation table. By the end of 1978, Vietnamese leaders decided to remove the Khmer Rouge-dominated regime of Democratic Kampuchea, perceiving it as being pro-Chinese and too hostile towards Vietnam. On 25 December 1978, 150,000 Vietnamese troops invaded Democratic Kampuchea and overran the Kampuchean Revolutionary Army in just two weeks. On 8 January 1979, the pro-Vietnamese People's Republic of Kampuchea (PRK) was established in Phnom Penh, marking the beginning of a ten-year Vietnamese occupation. During that period, the Khmer Rouge's Democratic Kampuchea continued to be recognised by the United Nations as the legitimate government of Kampuchea, as several armed resistance groups were formed to fight the Vietnamese occupation. Behind the scenes, Prime Minister Hun Sen of the PRK regime approached factions of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) to begin peace talks. Under heavy diplomatic and economic pressure from the international community, the Vietnamese government implemented a series of economic and foreign policy reforms, which led to their withdrawal from Kampuchea in September 1989.

That's what you call an aggressive foreign policy? Ridiculous. Go ahead and send a link on the Cuban aggression if you want, I'd be interested to read it.

Yes but how do you define it? Not people, but what set of beliefs?

As I said, I think it's the primacy of public interests and social welfare over the individual or private interests. I think that's the basic tension between left and right. The people I listed are the ones that I think are the most notable proponents of that value.

Again though, this comes back to how you define the left, as in what set of beliefs. Presumably leftism is not defined by who pays you to make speeches.

Not defined, but I do think it's suggestive. I mean, it's difficult to imagine Goldman Sachs paying people to come speak at their conferences about the benefits of public ownership and redistributive policies.

 

[fskimospy]

Or they have different politics to you, perhaps? They might be wrong (on most Soviet interventions I'd absolutely say they were) but it's a mite more complicated than just 'bigotry'. I guess they would distinguish between interfering to support the downtrodden workers, and imperialist meddling to further imperialist/capitalist interests.

If anyone believes the aggressive foreign policy of communist states was generally to support downtrodden workers I have a bridge to sell them.

I don't care if they have different politics than me, that idea is at odds with all available evidence. Interventions are not somehow special and worse just because a western country does them.

Anyway, I thought this conversation was about politics in Western states? As there aren't really any communist countries left, I don't see the point in arguing about that flavour of interventionism.

Because a principle of nonintervention was listed as a fundamental tenet of leftism despite all of the most leftist governments in history having highly aggressive foreign policy.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you can go down a rabbit hole arguing what was achievable, what the composition congress was, etc. etc.

I don't think it's a rabbit hole at all, there is simply no evidence that suggests universal health care was an achievable goal in 2009.

The president was extremely influential in 2008 and early 2009, and the bottom line is he didn't push for UHC at all. I think there was a sense (and I include myself in this), that what we were going to get was far better than what existed before, so even if it wasn't perfect, it was a win, and there were not many people fighting for true UHC. In hindsight, it was a terrible mistake, and I think we need to be honest with ourselves about that.

Absolutely not. It was either the ACA or nothing and the ACA has been a tremendous success. Not only has it directly improved the lives of millions, it has so shifted the Overton window that we have senate republicans going on and on about how we need to keep health care for the poor.

Even if it is entirely repealed tomorrow it has been 100% worth it.

From your linked article:

That's what you call an aggressive foreign policy? Ridiculous. Go ahead and send a link on the Cuban aggression if you want, I'd be interested to read it.

Yes, I call invading and occupying neighboring countries for a decade when you couldn't agree in negotiations to be a highly aggressive foreign policy.

As for Cuba, there are articles everywhere about them attempting to export the revolution by destabilizing other governments.

I think we should all be able to accept the truth that the foreign policy of communist countries was generally quite aggressive. Since they were highly leftist countries, this directly refutes the idea that nonintervention is a required leftist principle.

As I said, I think it's the primacy of public interests and social welfare over the individual or private interests. I think that's the basic tension between left and right. The people I listed are the ones that I think are the most notable proponents of that value.

If you go back and look at your complaints about Obama and Clinton that doesn't really hold up though.

Not defined, but I do think it's suggestive. I mean, it's difficult to imagine Goldman Sachs paying people to come speak at their conferences about the benefits of public ownership and redistributive policies.

Maybe that's not what they talk about there but it doesn't mean that's not what they believe.

 

[Blackjack200]

I don't think it's a rabbit hole at all, there is simply no evidence that suggests universal health care was an achievable goal in 2009.

The reason it's a rabbit hole is because you're asserting that something was impossible when it was not seriously tried. If Obama had championed single payer, Medicare for all, and it failed, you could back up a claim that UHC was not achievable. But you're relying on reported public support and measures of congressional moderation. We've seen how quickly public opinion and political will can shift on issues like gay marriage.

Absolutely not. It was either the ACA or nothing and the ACA has been a tremendous success. Not only has it directly improved the lives of millions, it has so shifted the Overton window that we have senate republicans going on and on about how we need to keep health care for the poor.

Even if it is entirely repealed tomorrow it has been 100% worth it.

Okay, then consider this. If the ACA was a tremendous success, why has public support for UHC climbed so quickly since the 2016 campaign? That seems kind of counterintuitive, no? I would argue that it's because Bernie Sanders has championed it, and people like what they hear.

Yes, I call invading and occupying neighboring countries for a decade when you couldn't agree in negotiations to be a highly aggressive foreign policy.

You left out the part where they were invaded twice.

As for Cuba, there are articles everywhere about them attempting to export the revolution by destabilizing other governments.

Then it should be easy to find one to link.

I think we should all be able to accept the truth that the foreign policy of communist countries was generally quite aggressive. Since they were highly leftist countries, this directly refutes the idea that nonintervention is a required leftist principle.

"Since they were highly leftist countries" is fairly presumptuous, no? You'll accuse me of no true Scotsman, but you're the one insisting that cold war behavior from states that claimed to be communist be considered representative of leftist foreign policy. I'd call that a clear straw man. Let's see some examples of contemporary leftists supporting interventionist foreign policies, or put this one to bed.

If you go back and look at your complaints about Obama and Clinton that doesn't really hold up though.

My issue in this thread is with calling them 'the left'. I think in the current political landscape, that's just not accurate. People in our political discourse (aside, perhaps, from some right wing lunatics) are not referring to HRC or Obama when they say "the left". They're talking about the growing political movement that has rejected neoliberalism.

Maybe that's not what they talk about there but it doesn't mean that's not what they believe.

What does it matter what they believe? What matters is what they do.

 

[fskimospy]

The reason it's a rabbit hole is because you're asserting that something was impossible when it was not seriously tried. If Obama had championed single payer, Medicare for all, and it failed, you could back up a claim that UHC was not achievable. But you're relying on reported public support and measures of congressional moderation. We've seen how quickly public opinion and political will can shift on issues like gay marriage.

I have not seen a single piece of evidence that indicates it was an even modestly probable outcome. By this logic you can't say ANYTHING Obama didn't try was unlikely, and that's pretty ridiculous. I guess we don't know if Obama could have passed a bill to nuke the moon either.

Okay, then consider this. If the ACA was a tremendous success, why has public support for UHC climbed so quickly since the 2016 campaign? That seems kind of counterintuitive, no? I would argue that it's because Bernie Sanders has championed it, and people like what they hear.

Public support for universal health care has always been high. Regardless, I sincerely doubt Sanders pushing for it is the reason, far more likely is that people see the ACA as a compromise that didn't moderate Republican behavior and are now doubling down. Same thing would have happened if Sanders didn't exist.

You left out the part where they were invaded twice.

Border skirmishes like that in absolutely no way justify a decade long invasion and occupation and you know it.

Come on. Again, in literally EVERY case, leftist nations had a highly aggressive foreign policy. Why is this such a hard thing to admit?

Then it should be easy to find one to link.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Cuba

"Since they were highly leftist countries" is fairly presumptuous, no? You'll accuse me of no true Scotsman, but you're the one insisting that cold war behavior from states that claimed to be communist be considered representative of leftist foreign policy. I'd call that a clear straw man. Let's see some examples of contemporary leftists supporting interventionist foreign policies, or put this one to bed.

I will in fact No True Scotsman you. If those countries were not leftist then no leftist country has ever existed and that's absurd.

My issue in this thread is with calling them 'the left'. I think in the current political landscape, that's just not accurate. People in our political discourse (aside, perhaps, from some right wing lunatics) are not referring to HRC or Obama when they say "the left". They're talking about the growing political movement that has rejected neoliberalism.

You have it backwards. Almost everyone in the country thinks of Obama and HRC as part of the left. It's only that small movement that rejects neoliberalism that thinks otherwise, and frankly I've found that movement generally defines neoliberalism as 'anything i don't like'. I doubt many of them even know what they mean.

What does it matter what they believe? What matters is what they do.

When all they are doing is talking it's hard to draw much of a distinction.

 

[Blackjack200]

I have not seen a single piece of evidence that indicates it was an even modestly probable outcome. By this logic you can't say ANYTHING Obama didn't try was unlikely, and that's pretty ridiculous. I guess we don't know if Obama could have passed a bill to nuke the moon either.

You're the one that said the data is clear on this. I was arguing that it wasn't clear and you can't draw conclusions. The difference between UHC and nuking the moon is that support for UHC, as you note below, is far higher.

The bottom line is that single payer is more leftist and a market based solution is more liberal, Obama campaigned on and ultimately delivered the market based solution.

Public support for universal health care has always been high. Regardless, I sincerely doubt Sanders pushing for it is the reason, far more likely is that people see the ACA as a compromise that didn't moderate Republican behavior and are now doubling down. Same thing would have happened if Sanders didn't exist.

It has increased recently. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...overnment-should-ensure-health-care-coverage/

I find it hard to believe that it doesn't have anything to do with the emergence of the "new left" since the Sanders campaign began, but I don't suppose there's any way to demonstrate it so...

Border skirmishes like that in absolutely no way justify a decade long invasion and occupation and you know it.

Come on. Again, in literally EVERY case, leftist nations had a highly aggressive foreign policy. Why is this such a hard thing to admit?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Cuba

I don't think anything you posted describes an "aggressive foreign policy", and in any case, whatever is supposed to constitute that aggression ended more than 20 years ago (40 in the case of Cuba).

I will in fact No True Scotsman you. If those countries were not leftist then no leftist country has ever existed and that's absurd.

It's a straw man because I never made an argument for any of these governments. My arguments pertain to the contemporary American political landscape. I defined a leftist for you, and I named dozen or so fairly prominent ones. If you can find support for interventionism among any of them, I'll happily concede the point.

You have it backwards. Almost everyone in the country thinks of Obama and HRC as part of the left. It's only that small movement that rejects neoliberalism that thinks otherwise,

You may be right there. I don't consume much of what would be considered mainstream anymore, so I may be underestimating the degree to which liberals and the left remain lumped together. In any case, I think there is recognition of the "Sanders base" for lack of a better term, as distinct from the corporatist Democratic Party supporters much as there is recognition of the TEA party as distinct from neoconservatism.

and frankly I've found that movement generally defines neoliberalism as 'anything i don't like'. I doubt many of them even know what they mean.

This is the oddest persistent trope. Neoliberalism is a faith or belief in regulated markets and publicly supported private enterprise to accomplish public goals. The ACA is an excellent example. Subsidies and strict rules for insurance companies to provide coverage that every other wealthy nation simply provides in a public model.

It's not complicated or nebulous at all, it's quite simple.

When all they are doing is talking it's hard to draw much of a distinction.

They do things all the time. For example, spend resources on Jon Ossoff's campaign but not Rob Quist's.

 

[agent00f]

Replace 'centrism' with 'triangulation' and I would agree.

Stalin wasn't the same as Trump or Putin though. Domestically it can't be denied he was 'left wing', unlike Putin he didn't preside over a system of 'crony capitalism', he was still a communist, however much communists might want to disown him, and unlike Trump he clearly had a vast reserve of class-resentment/hatred (to the degree he hated his fellow Bolsheviks if they were middle-class intellectuals).

Also he was more a paranoid psychopath than an insecure narcisssist, so he had a quite different set of personal dysfunctions to Trump!

Edit - I actually find myself occassionally feeling sorry for Trump. I don't think he's very happy, underneath. I think he's desperately insecure. There's something quite sad about his attitude to women.

Centrism is just the term used for that class of strategy. When people refer to centrist politicians, it's literally what said pols do.

Stalin was about as much of a communist as Trump is a christian, or in other words completely opportunistic. I mean what kind of communist signs pacts with right wing nazis whose major party platform was elimination of communism.

Again though, the idea that nonintervention is left wing discounts the behavior of literally every seriously left wing country in history. It hardly seems left wing to me at all.

I am aware of no rational reason why intervention would only apply to western states in this conversation and I'm aware of no definition of it that limits it to western states. If leftists do think interventions only apply to western states then they are stupid and bigoted.

The original argument for this was western states tended to be perps in brutal colonization which various leftist groups fought against, which was mostly true. Of course once the USSR and such started competing for dominance they started becoming just as bad.

 

[fskimospy]

You're the one that said the data is clear on this. I was arguing that it wasn't clear and you can't draw conclusions. The difference between UHC and nuking the moon is that support for UHC, as you note below, is far higher.

The bottom line is that single payer is more leftist and a market based solution is more liberal, Obama campaigned on and ultimately delivered the market based solution.

Yes, the data is clear: the democratic caucuses were not remotely liberal enough to implement UHC at that time. This is backed up by contemporaneous statements by those involved and by empirical measures of congressional ideology. None of the available evidence indicates UHC was a feasible outcome.

It has increased recently. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...overnment-should-ensure-health-care-coverage/

I find it hard to believe that it doesn't have anything to do with the emergence of the "new left" since the Sanders campaign began, but I don't suppose there's any way to demonstrate it so...

Considering that support has increased more from Republicans than Democrats it seems something else would be at play there.

I don't think anything you posted describes an "aggressive foreign policy", and in any case, whatever is supposed to constitute that aggression ended more than 20 years ago (40 in the case of Cuba).

I think decade long invasions and occupations are aggressive. Your mileage may vary. Remember too that these were your examples of the LEAST aggressive leftist nations. The other ones were hugely aggressive.

It's a straw man because I never made an argument for any of these governments. My arguments pertain to the contemporary American political landscape. I defined a leftist for you, and I named dozen or so fairly prominent ones. If you can find support for interventionism among any of them, I'll happily concede the point.

I never said you were arguing for those governments, just that they were examples of leftist ideology in practice, which was highly aggressive. I don't find the argument that leftism is for nonintervention convincing when every time a group of leftists had had the ability to intervene by controlling a state they have had no problem with it.

You may be right there. I don't consume much of what would be considered mainstream anymore, so I may be underestimating the degree to which liberals and the left remain lumped together. In any case, I think there is recognition of the "Sanders base" for lack of a better term, as distinct from the corporatist Democratic Party supporters much as there is recognition of the TEA party as distinct from neoconservatism.

Maybe, although in that case I wouldn't fall in either and I consider myself a democrat.

This is the oddest persistent trope. Neoliberalism is a faith or belief in regulated markets and publicly supported private enterprise to accomplish public goals. The ACA is an excellent example. Subsidies and strict rules for insurance companies to provide coverage that every other wealthy nation simply provides in a public model.

It's not complicated or nebulous at all, it's quite simple.

That's a very nebulous definition. Anything that is not entirely state owned or an anarcho-capitalist society is a regulated market, meaning everywhere on earth is 'neoliberal' and basically always has been, outside of communism.

Neoliberalism as defined in an economics sense absolutely does not mean public support of private enterprise and as it is commonly defined it refers to conservative economics of deregulated markets which the ACA absolutely does not represent. This is sort of what I mean by neoliberalism meaning whatever people want it to. Neoliberals would vomit at the idea of the government forcing everyone to purchase into a market where benefits are determined by the government and profits capped. That's the opposite of the deregulation neoliberalism stands for.

They do things all the time. For example, spend resources on Jon Ossoff's campaign but not Rob Quist's.

You think the Democratic Party not spending enough to support the neoliberal, ACA loving Rob Quist was because he wasn't neoliberal enough? This is conspiracy theory territory.

 

[fskimospy]

Centrism is just the term used for that class of strategy. When people refer to centrist politicians, it's literally what said pols do.

Stalin was about as much of a communist as Trump is a christian, or in other words completely opportunistic. I mean what kind of communist signs pacts with right wing nazis whose major party platform was elimination of communism.

Except of course Stalin most certainly continued the policy of public ownership of the means of production while I find it unlikely that Trump gives much of a shit about Jesus as his personal savior.

The original argument for this was western states tended to be perps in brutal colonization which various leftist groups fought against, which was mostly true. Of course once the USSR and such started competing for dominance they started becoming just as bad.

Right, if only western nations did that sort of thing he would have a point. The evidence is clear that nations all over the world are very excited to brutally oppress others if given the chance.

 

[agent00f]

Except of course Stalin most certainly continued the policy of public ownership of the means of production while I find it unlikely that Trump gives much of a shit about Jesus as his personal savior.

Sure, because it was in his personal interest to control those means of production, in the same way that it's in Trump's interests to accept Jesus as his personal savior to control christians. Of course the difference is in Stalinist russia nobody was going to be against stalin, whereas people here have options. And so "christians" choose to pretend he's with the lord (amusingly in much the same way as they themselves are) because he's a convenient barrier to progress same as they wish to be.

Right, if only western nations did that sort of thing he would have a point. The evidence is clear that nations all over the world are very excited to brutally oppress others if given the chance.

The overarching point here is that it's often in the interest of the powerful to oppress the weak, none made more clear than the naked capitalism which motivated colonization & such. The purpose of "the left" was to counteract that, but we see that too few are immune to the strong draw of selfishness.

 

[woolfe9998]

Public support for universal health care has always been high. Regardless, I sincerely doubt Sanders pushing for it is the reason, far more likely is that people see the ACA as a compromise that didn't moderate Republican behavior and are now doubling down. Same thing would have happened if Sanders didn't exist.

Support for full blown single payer was considerably lower in 2009 than it is today.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...l-moore-claims-majority-favor-single-payer-h/

If you read the linked article, you'll see that your statement is technically correct. A majority wanted "universal healthcare" but not necessarily from a full government system. So if what you mean by "UHC" is something akin to single payer, then no. Not then.

It fares much better in polling today. I suspect that is because, in spite of some success of the ACA in getting more people insured, and bending the cost curve some for a few years, health premiums continue to go through the roof. I myself am high income but vastly underinsured. We pay an obscene amount for what is basically catastrophic health coverage, and then we pay for all of our own healthcare out of our pockets on top of that. Our HSA is the only thing that mitigates this, and we get a decent benefit from it only because of our high rate of taxation.

Soon enough, health coverage will be only for the wealthy and maybe the upper middle class. Neither individuals nor employers will be able to afford it anymore. Single payer is not an if, it's a when. We have no choice, and I think Americans are waking up to that fact. All the GOP can do is delay as long as possible.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yes, the data is clear: the democratic caucuses were not remotely liberal enough to implement UHC at that time. This is backed up by contemporaneous statements by those involved and by empirical measures of congressional ideology. None of the available evidence indicates UHC was a feasible outcome.

Well, it's certainly not feasible if the broadly popular president doesn't push for it.

Considering that support has increased more from Republicans than Democrats it seems something else would be at play there.

So Obama moved the Overton window by implementing the ACA, but Sanders didn't move the Overton window by making a full throated argument for true UHC as the most popular politician in the country?

I think decade long invasions and occupations are aggressive. Your mileage may vary. Remember too that these were your examples of the LEAST aggressive leftist nations. The other ones were hugely aggressive.

I guess people can look at the evidence and decide for themselves if they think Vietnam or Cuba have aggressive foreign policies.

I never said you were arguing for those governments, just that they were examples of leftist ideology in practice, which was highly aggressive. I don't find the argument that leftism is for nonintervention convincing when every time a group of leftists had had the ability to intervene by controlling a state they have had no problem with it.

I wouldn't say that America is an example of democratic ideology, or republican ideology, or capitalist ideology in practice because it is obviously a deeply imperfect example of all three of those things. No one is saying "we should be governed like the Vietnamese" so it's difficult to understand why you're hanging on to this. It strikes me as you arguing with a more convenient foil (Stalin, Castro) than the argument actually being presented. Thus a straw man. I can show you plenty of examples of contemporary liberals that are interventionists, starting with Obama and HRC. Jonathan Chait, Paul Berman, Michael Tomansky, Joe Biden, etc. etc. There are tons of them. Where are the interventionist leftists?

That's a very nebulous definition. Anything that is not entirely state owned or an anarcho-capitalist society is a regulated market, meaning everywhere on earth is 'neoliberal' and basically always has been, outside of communism.

Neoliberalism as defined in an economics sense absolutely does not mean public support of private enterprise and as it is commonly defined it refers to conservative economics of deregulated markets which the ACA absolutely does not represent. This is sort of what I mean by neoliberalism meaning whatever people want it to. Neoliberals would vomit at the idea of the government forcing everyone to purchase into a market where benefits are determined by the government and profits capped. That's the opposite of the deregulation neoliberalism stands for.

You're right, I was using the word wrong. I think part of the confusion comes about because political liberalism in the US is almost the opposite of economic liberalism. Something I already knew, but should have been watching out for.

You think the Democratic Party not spending enough to support the neoliberal, ACA loving Rob Quist was because he wasn't neoliberal enough? This is conspiracy theory territory.

No, I think they didn't support him because he was an outsider. I don't understand how that would make me a conspiracy theorist.[/QUOTE]

 

[pmv]

Can't be bothered using quotes because it's getting too complicated.

But I just wanted to say the one thing I agree with fskimospy about is that Stalin was a communist. I think the 'no true Scotsman' approach to Stalin is unconvincing. He was also a lot closer to Lenin personally and politically than the Troskyists tried to lead people to believe.

However I'd say he was, in his approach to nationalism and patriotism, as opposed to domestically, on the right not the left (and very much at odds with Lenin in that particular respect).

Indeed I think Stalinism could almost be described as _real_ national socialism, as opposed to the misnamed Hitlerian variety (which was actually a mixture of capitalism and something else entirely, neither socialist nor capitalist, something nihilistic and almost demonic).

Hence the occasional red-brown alliances we've seen in post-Soviet Russia between old Stalinists and nationalist neo-fascists.

I give up though on trying to get across the fact that liberal intervention is a very different thing from communist intervention, _even_ if one is not enamoured of many of the real world examples of the latter. The context and purpose and effect is just different.

 

[pmv]

I also think there's a fundamental difference between liberalism and the left. Liberals tend to see 'the poor' as just another underprivileged group to be helped out if circumstances allow, along with all the other disadvantaged groups (at least if they are of the JS Mill strand of positive-rights liberalism, as opposed to the other libertarian 'negative rights' strand, who don't really want to do anything about the issue at all).

The left tends to see class and economic stratification as a structural issue requiring more fundamental change.

 

[Jhhnn]

I also think there's a fundamental difference between liberalism and the left. Liberals tend to see 'the poor' as just another underprivileged group to be helped out if circumstances allow, along with all the other disadvantaged groups (at least if they are of the JS Mill strand of positive-rights liberalism, as opposed to the other libertarian 'negative rights' strand, who don't really want to do anything about the issue at all).

The left tends to see class and economic stratification as a structural issue requiring more fundamental change.

That grades across liberalism & the left, varying over time as well. The equilibrium between the wealthy & the rest of us, not just the poor, has shifted enormously to the wealthy over the last 40 years. That's just the truth we live with. Reversing that is simply a matter of economic self defense. Anybody who thinks that trickle down economics can do that is out of their minds.

This is an enormously wealthy country with plenty of pie to go around if we don't let the big guys hog it.

 

[agent00f]

Can't be bothered using quotes because it's getting too complicated.

But I just wanted to say the one thing I agree with fskimospy about is that Stalin was a communist. I think the 'no true Scotsman' approach to Stalin is unconvincing. He was also a lot closer to Lenin personally and politically than the Troskyists tried to lead people to believe.

However I'd say he was, in his approach to nationalism and patriotism, as opposed to domestically, on the right not the left (and very much at odds with Lenin in that particular respect).

Indeed I think Stalinism could almost be described as _real_ national socialism, as opposed to the misnamed Hitlerian variety (which was actually a mixture of capitalism and something else entirely, neither socialist nor capitalist, something nihilistic and almost demonic).

Hence the occasional red-brown alliances we've seen in post-Soviet Russia between old Stalinists and nationalist neo-fascists.

I give up though on trying to get across the fact that liberal intervention is a very different thing from communist intervention, _even_ if one is not enamoured of many of the real world examples of the latter. The context and purpose and effect is just different.

In that case, the People's Democratic Republic of Korea truly lives up to its name because everyone there would vote for Kim Jung-un.

Literally the basic definition of socialism is labor ownership (ie control) of the means to their livelihood. Would you say that's the case in Soviet russia? In contrast in the west at least labor had some democratic representation over common resources.

 

[Roflmouth]

That grades across liberalism & the left, varying over time as well.

True. Liberals are idiots, and the left are morons. The distinctions are important.

 

[Jhhnn]

True. Liberals are idiots, and the left are morons. The distinctions are important.

And you're still a troll.

 

[Atreus21]

Support for full blown single payer was considerably lower in 2009 than it is today.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...l-moore-claims-majority-favor-single-payer-h/

If you read the linked article, you'll see that your statement is technically correct. A majority wanted "universal healthcare" but not necessarily from a full government system. So if what you mean by "UHC" is something akin to single payer, then no. Not then.

It fares much better in polling today. I suspect that is because, in spite of some success of the ACA in getting more people insured, and bending the cost curve some for a few years, health premiums continue to go through the roof. I myself am high income but vastly underinsured. We pay an obscene amount for what is basically catastrophic health coverage, and then we pay for all of our own healthcare out of our pockets on top of that. Our HSA is the only thing that mitigates this, and we get a decent benefit from it only because of our high rate of taxation.

Soon enough, health coverage will be only for the wealthy and maybe the upper middle class. Neither individuals nor employers will be able to afford it anymore. Single payer is not an if, it's a when. We have no choice, and I think Americans are waking up to that fact. All the GOP can do is delay as long as possible.

Is it not possible that all the government involvement in the healthcare market is the cause of this, not the cure?

 

[Jhhnn]

Is it not possible that all the government involvement in the healthcare market is the cause of this, not the cure?

Seems more likely that non-involvement for decades while our contemporary first world companions embraced UHC is a more likely cause. We're wrestling with problems they addressed decades ago. Cuz Freedumb, obviously. Cuz Billionaires need tax cuts.

 

[agent00f]

Is it not possible that all the government involvement in the healthcare market is the cause of this, not the cure?

This is trivially wrong as demonstrated by literally every other first world HC system, but you knew that.