WHAT'S NEXT FOR LIBERALISM?

[raildogg]

So in California, gay marriage and marijuana are both legal. Bathrooms are open to either gender. Open borders is being rejected in Europe and is as good as rejected in the United States. Continuing to push for open borders will obviously happen but what comes next in the name of progress for progress' sake?

Legal heroine? Sex change operations for minors? It's not like they can just stop.

It's part of the plan to remove any values the society may have left. That's why the celebrities they push on you are what they are. It's partly to normalize immoral behavior and to marginalize decent behavior.

It is working.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Culture may have been won? What culture are you talking about?

The culture of lies, degeneration, hypocrisy and corruption?

The "Culture War" is loaded term two decades old that specifically talks about the battle of Christian social conservatism vs Liberal/Libertarian social values.

This war has been lost. Not only can gays marry, but abortion is legal, and drug legalization is full steam ahead.

Also Trump won the nomination and then the presidency without having to declare his love for the conservative part of the culture war, which means no candidate going forward will pretend to fit in that box if they don't to appease Christians. Christians showed they are a cheap date, they will vote Republican regardless.

The moral majority died in this election cycle, and I for one am happy to see it go. It was killing the future of the Republican Party, which is half of our political system.

 

[raildogg]

The "Culture War" is loaded term two decades old that specifically talks about the battle of Christian social conservatism vs Liberal/Libertarian social values.

This war has been lost. Not only can gays marry, but abortion is legal, and drug legalization is full steam ahead.

Also Trump won the nomination and then the presidency without having to declare his love for the conservative part of the culture war, which means no candidate going forward will pretend to fit in that box if they don't to appease Christians. Christians showed they are a cheap date, they will vote Republican regardless.

The moral majority died in this election cycle, and I for one am happy to see it go. It was killing the future of the Republican Party, which is half of our political system.

These people are fusing their so-called "values" with their political identities. It doesn't work that way because most people, including me, are hypocrites and don't do the things they profess.

People voted for a man who made crude remarks, has said all kinds of nasty things that are the opposite of what most organized religions supposedly teach and in general is a shady character. Their so-called morals don't apply when it comes to politics I guess. I mean, what sort of "moral" person will vote for such a person? Or vote at all?

The so-called Christians we are speaking of are not the real religious people. They might be Sunday Christians but that's different from people who have deep morals and/or decency. Both of which are gone in this society.

Yes, this society is now more liberal in the sense of "doing whatever you want" but that does have its consequences. Big ones.

 

[poofyhairguy]

These people are fusing their so-called "values" with their political identities. It doesn't work that way because most people, including me, are hypocrites and don't do the things they profess.

People voted for a man who made crude remarks, has said all kinds of nasty things that are the opposite of what most organized religions supposedly teach and in general is a shady character. Their so-called morals don't apply when it comes to politics I guess. I mean, what sort of "moral" person will vote for such a person? Or vote at all?

I would argue what Trump said wasn't actually offense to many people in red states or who do blue collar work. It was how they were raised, and they heard the same or similar their whole lives in lockerrooms or on job sites.

The so-called Christians we are speaking of are not the real religious people. They might be Sunday Christians but that's different from people who have deep morals and/or decency. Both of which are gone in this society.

I think there are still people with deep morals, the difference is religion no longer has a monopoly on that group.

Yes, this society is now more liberal in the sense of "doing whatever you want" but that does have its consequences. Big ones.

I think it is important to have rules for logical reasons, but I was always against policies simply because some words in an ancient book (and not even the important words from the most important person in that book) say that is how you are supposed to live. I really don't see any "consequences" coming down the pipe for gay marriage or legal pot. Abortion is more debatable, it has a sticky place in the American mind for a reason.

 

[desura]

You are saying his majorities--the people that voted for him--were a fluke.

I'm not talking about seats and influence within the party. You are trying to compare individuals within their own constituencies--well, you were, until you moved your goal posts with this post.

The people that voted for Obama, voted for Obama. If the same people voted for a non-dem in some other seat, they voted for that person. Not because of Obama.

Ask former governor shitstain McCrory in NC what it's like for the people to vote in your republican colleagues but vote you out--because, well, they hate you.

Your argument suggests that people don't vote for individuals, they vote for parties or only against individuals because of the way their parties act?

This makes no sense. Just ask NC.

Also, you suggest that Obama's support was a fluke, twice in a row, because Trump won a handful of his supporters in one election? But Trump's support from those voters is suddenly 100% legit?

Weed is legal where I live, but clearly isn't as good as whatever you guys are getting.

Clinton ran on a harder and more explicit racial and identity appeal than Obama ever did. Obama did get a lot of free passes because of his race and his charisma, and these do not transfer to other D politicians. That is the main lesson here. Obama is Obama and he does not leave behind a gaggle of Obama-lites. The rules are different for Obama and someone trying to replicate his success will not be able to.

She did win majorities, mainly in coastal states, but the incoming Trump administration has a good chance of reconfiguring the goalposts in the next four years. For starters, if Trump and Kris Kobach really do clamp down hard on illegal immigration, this will likely mean fewer D votes, as people self-deport.

Obama benefitted from the anti war energy in the party. The precursor was the 2006 midterm which saw large D gains over Iraq.

NC governor and others who sign anti LGBT legislation get in trouble because corporations retaliate against them for being "non-inclusive", not because of organic grassroots opposition.

People tend to vote on party issues, but occasionally will make exceptions for individuals. Obama won on a combination of personal charisma which led to exceptions, and the specific issue of war weariness. He did not win on gay marriage, and until recently was against gay marriage.

What did Mrs. Clinton lead off with? Celebration of gay marriage. She won majorities against Trump, but many speculate that Rubio could have gotten larger majorities than her.

 

[Jhhnn]

For starters, if Trump and Kris Kobach really do clamp down hard on illegal immigration, this will likely mean fewer D votes, as people self-deport.

Your whole post is bullshit, but that's particularly delusional.

 

[agent00f]

Clinton ran on a harder and more explicit racial and identity appeal than Obama ever did. Obama did get a lot of free passes because of his race and his charisma, and these do not transfer to other D politicians. That is the main lesson here. Obama is Obama and he does not leave behind a gaggle of Obama-lites. The rules are different for Obama and someone trying to replicate his success will not be able to.

She did win majorities, mainly in coastal states, but the incoming Trump administration has a good chance of reconfiguring the goalposts in the next four years. For starters, if Trump and Kris Kobach really do clamp down hard on illegal immigration, this will likely mean fewer D votes, as people self-deport.

Obama benefitted from the anti war energy in the party. The precursor was the 2006 midterm which saw large D gains over Iraq.

NC governor and others who sign anti LGBT legislation get in trouble because corporations retaliate against them for being "non-inclusive", not because of organic grassroots opposition.

People tend to vote on party issues, but occasionally will make exceptions for individuals. Obama won on a combination of personal charisma which led to exceptions, and the specific issue of war weariness. He did not win on gay marriage, and until recently was against gay marriage.

What did Mrs. Clinton lead off with? Celebration of gay marriage. She won majorities against Trump, but many speculate that Rubio could have gotten larger majorities than her.

Rubio had supporter racial resentment numbers akin to a democrat, which is why he was absolutely crushed by Trump. Guess what won trump the rust belt.

This also explains why you'll believe anything nasty about indigenous looking mexicans.

 

[agent00f]

I would argue what Trump said wasn't actually offense to many people in red states or who do blue collar work. It was how they were raised, and they heard the same or similar their whole lives in lockerrooms or on job sites.

I think there are still people with deep morals, the difference is religion no longer has a monopoly on that group.

I think it is important to have rules for logical reasons, but I was always against policies simply because some words in an ancient book (and not even the important words from the most important person in that book) say that is how you are supposed to live. I really don't see any "consequences" coming down the pipe for gay marriage or legal pot. Abortion is more debatable, it has a sticky place in the American mind for a reason.

The religious right was based on the suspect pretense that these people had moral values in the first place. It's pretty obvious they don't even think much of Jesus, which puts into perspective how the rest of it stack ranks. The whole setup is basically, like political correctness, a way of put a veneer on the lowest common denominator.

 

[Jaskalas]

That map starts going up as a long-term trend as neoliberal Reaganomics of the past 35+ years began.

What screwed people over were Reagan Democrats not standing up to Republicans.

Look at when income inequality was the highest before now. The "roaring" 1920s of deregulation and tax cuts. Go fucking figure cutting taxes on the richest people in the solar system results in capital creating bubbles and the richest getting richer, to the detriment of the economy as a whole. Economies only work when money is fluid and everyone gets a taste.

Look at when income inequality fell and stabilized - when the New Deal Democratic party owned and operated the gub'mint for the benefit of the newly created middle class.

To that end, our future policy is not communist or socialist in origin. It is American as it worked in the past.
It cannot be the exact same policy, as labor has changed. Labor is in the midst of decoupling from production.
So our aim should be to take production and redirect its value back to the American people.

 

[theeedude]

To that end, our future policy is not communist or socialist in origin. It is American as it worked in the past.
It cannot be the exact same policy, as labor has changed. Labor is in the midst of decoupling from production.
So our aim should be to take production and redirect its value back to the American people.

AKA Communism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society

A communist economic system would be characterized by advanced productive technology that enables material abundance, which in turn would enable the free distribution of most or all economic output and the holding of the means of producing this output in common.

A communist society would free individuals from long working hours by first automating production to an extent that the average length of the working day is reduced[12] and second by eliminating the exploitation inherent in the division between workers and owners. A communist system would thus free individuals from alienation in the sense of having one's life structured around survival (making a wage or salary in a capitalist system), which Marx referred to as a transition from the "realm of necessity" to the "realm of freedom." As a result, a communist society is envisioned as being composed of an intellectually-inclined population with both the time and resources to pursue its creative hobbies and genuine interests, and to contribute to creative social wealth in this manner. Karl Marx considered "true richness" to be the amount of time one has at his or her disposal to pursue one's creative passions.[13][14] Marx's notion of communism is in this way radically individualistic.[15]

Marx's concept of the "realm of freedom" goes hand-in-hand with Marx's idea of the ending of the division of labor, which would not be required in a society with highly automated production and limited work roles.

In a communist society, economic necessity and relations would cease to determine cultural and social relations. As scarcity is eliminated,[9] alienated labor would cease and people would be free to pursue their individual goals.[16]

 

[Jaskalas]

A safety net underpinning a capitalist market does not strike me as Communism.

 

[theeedude]

A safety net underpinning a capitalist market does not strike me as Communism.

Depends on the size of the safety net relative to the size of the market. And as jobs get automated away, that ratio will keep growing.

 

[agent00f]

To that end, our future policy is not communist or socialist in origin. It is American as it worked in the past.
It cannot be the exact same policy, as labor has changed. Labor is in the midst of decoupling from production.
So our aim should be to take production and redirect its value back to the American people.

A safety net underpinning a capitalist market does not strike me as Communism.

A coupling of labor to (the means of) production is literally socialism by definition.

 

[theeedude]

Trump is stuffing his economic team with supply-siders. Just out of curiosity, do resident conservatives think trickle down is going to work this time? Was Reagan doing it wrong? Is Kansas doing it wrong? Is every other place where it has been tried just doing it wrong? Is Trump finally going to do it right, and it's going to work now?

 

[MajinCry]

A coupling of labor to (the means of) production is literally socialism by definition.

I could be wrong, but don't the terms go as follows:

Capitalism - Wealth is power. More money, more power. To get the most, spend the least required.

Socialism - Small amounts of wealth are taken from those with abundance, and focused into providing for those without. E.g, the NHS; a perfectly acceptable standard of healthcare available to all, with no upfront cost. FYI, average amount of tax money directed to it is £2,000 paid per person, IIRC.

Communism - A flat rate of exchange between work:salary.

Naturally, implementing these in their raw form is just disaster, no matter what your corporate overlords and banks may say. Unfettered capitalism nets you the destruction of the Earth and it's inhabitants. Unfettered socialism leaves the populace with no wealth. Unfettered communism removes the carrot for many.

We got to find a balance, and that balance will change as society, the economy, and the environment changes in turn.

 

[brandonbull]

What's next for liberalism is to learn the lessons that needed to be learned from 2016, sit back and watch Trump and his fellow billionaire buddies drain the treasury, cut their own taxes a hundred different ways to starve the government into submission, then raise the taxes on the middle class and the poor with teeny tiny fine print in legislation buried in a ton of riders to make up for the tax cuts Trump gave himself and friends, turn the Banksters and Wall Street crooks loose once more on the once stable and improving economy that Obama left behind, and presto change-o, it's 2008 all over again. Trump Corp. then gets their asses unceremoniously jerked out of the White House as they merrily count the billions upon billions of $$$ they ransacked and looted out of the Treasury.

Dems take over again to repair the mess again, but this time the Dems grow some bowling balls between their legs, execute the lessons they learned from 2016 and hammer away at the dirty deeds the GOP committed during Trump's excavation job at the nation's coffers and keep on incessantly hammering home 24/7/365 what the Repubs did and what they will do to the nation if they ever get another chance.

Howzzat?

Sounds like a Marxist's wet dream.

 

[glenn1]

These people are fusing their so-called "values" with their political identities. It doesn't work that way because most people, including me, are hypocrites and don't do the things they profess.

People voted for a man who made crude remarks, has said all kinds of nasty things that are the opposite of what most organized religions supposedly teach and in general is a shady character. Their so-called morals don't apply when it comes to politics I guess. I mean, what sort of "moral" person will vote for such a person? Or vote at all?

The so-called Christians we are speaking of are not the real religious people. They might be Sunday Christians but that's different from people who have deep morals and/or decency. Both of which are gone in this society.

Yes, this society is now more liberal in the sense of "doing whatever you want" but that does have its consequences. Big ones.

Most of the truly devout religious are like the highly charitable atheists - they spend most of their time and mental energy on the causes they care about instead of being political hyperpartisans. Sure any given person belonging to the Baptist Church (theist) or Ethical Society (humanist) or Moe's Tavern (atheist) might consider themselves a Democrat or Republican and vote accordingly. But they probably aren't doing so with the single-minded focus of someone who stands protesting outside Planned Parenthood everyday. Or travels to North Dakota in the winter to protest a pipeline being built. Instead they're too busy cooking the next meal at the Women's Shelter. Or restoring the playground in an urban park. Or teaching ESL.

 

[trenchfoot]

Sounds like a Marxist's wet dream.

I don't like Marx's ideology. His ideas are anachronistic and inflexible. I prefer Putin's because his is much more relevant to today's fluid changing times. With Trump's help, the two of them could end up ruling the world.

However, if you think about it, all three of them are in essence, plutocrats under the skin.

 

[desura]

Your whole post is bullshit, but that's particularly delusional.

Well then I'd recommend you actually making an argument.

Your whole post is bullshit, but that's particularly delusional.

Yeah, how is that delusional? You strike me as engaging in wishful thinking, as if you can wish away GOP control of the government. The biggest problem for Dems is that they are losing big on the state and local level, and that kills their talent pipeline. And how did Clinton run? How many times did she appear on stage with some stupid celebrity that no one cares about? Clinton's campaign was tone-deaf in ways that Obama's was not. As Obama said after the election, he himself would go in person to rural counties and ask for votes. Clinton didn't even bother doing that.

The Dems have convinced themselves that they can win on demographics, on the country becoming majority minority. It isn't going to work out like that.

 

[norseamd]

Sounds like the op is scared of many many things.

And lacking in certain things.

 

[norseamd]

I don't like Marx's ideology. His ideas are anachronistic and inflexible. I prefer Putin's because his is much more relevant to today's fluid changing times. With Trump's help, the two of them could end up ruling the world.

However, if you think about it, all three of them are in essence, plutocrats under the skin.

You going to clarify whether or not you are being genuine here or not?

 

[Jhhnn]

Well then I'd recommend you actually making an argument.


Yeah, how is that delusional? You strike me as engaging in wishful thinking, as if you can wish away GOP control of the government. The biggest problem for Dems is that they are losing big on the state and local level, and that kills their talent pipeline. And how did Clinton run? How many times did she appear on stage with some stupid celebrity that no one cares about? Clinton's campaign was tone-deaf in ways that Obama's was not. As Obama said after the election, he himself would go in person to rural counties and ask for votes. Clinton didn't even bother doing that.

The Dems have convinced themselves that they can win on demographics, on the country becoming majority minority. It isn't going to work out like that.

You alleged voter fraud was real & significant. That's bullshit. You can't support it with data of any kind.

You now dance away on a complete tangent to the post in question spreading more bullshit in typical fashion of a post-truth sort of troll.

 

[theeedude]

One of the biggest ironies for me is that the technological advancement and automation driven by purely Capitalst motives that will eventually pave the way to Communism with things like universal basic income and health care.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Yes,Socialism is working so well in Venezuela. Nothing like starving children to death to really rev up an economy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Depends on the size of the safety net relative to the size of the market. And as jobs get automated away, that ratio will keep growing.

Trump is stuffing his economic team with supply-siders. Just out of curiosity, do resident conservatives think trickle down is going to work this time? Was Reagan doing it wrong? Is Kansas doing it wrong? Is every other place where it has been tried just doing it wrong? Is Trump finally going to do it right, and it's going to work now?

Repub appeal is not rational. People can't reason their way out of something they didn't reason their way into. They'll just try to compartmentalize & rationalize away cognitive dissonance as it inevitably occurs.

America needs an epiphany. We'll only get there, I'm afraid, after Repubs succeed in breaking the economy in ways we can't compensate for as we did in the downfall of the ownership society. Which way we'll go when the time comes is very much up in the air but Dems need to warn against it & to be able to put the pieces back together in a different way or we'll slide off into outright corporate fascism, apparently the Repub ideal.