Why would a progressive support President Obama?

[KC]

This is a question I have often asked myself. Why would a progressive individual support a president whose policies are contrary to his or her ideology?

Most progressives were opposed to the PATRIOT Act, yet Obama has repeatedly defended it and contributed further to the erosion of civil liberties. His pro-corporate economic policy has lead to record high profits among the largest corporations, an explicitly pro corporate health reform and vast economic inequality. President Obama's decision to arm the Syrian rebels is the sort of foreign interventionism that progressives often soundly reject. What is it about this president that keeps progressives convinced of his intentions?

[Mainecoons]

The same thing that keeps them wedded to ideas that are gross failures in practice. Denial of reality so profound it is a mental illness.

Watch them go on and on here about the Zimmerman trial, posting the same falsehoods over and over as if that would actually change the facts as were brought out in the trial.

[Cigar]

Because in America; ALL Americans are Free to make their CHOICE ... just like Conservatives.

Period ... End of Story; Change Came to America in 2009 :grin:

[Chris]

Because in America; ALL Americans are Free to make their CHOICE ... just like Conservatives.

Period ... End of Story; Change Came to America in 2009 :grin:

The question is why that choice, cigar. We already know you made a choice. Be informative.

What change?

[Mainecoons]

Boy change sure did come, Cigar. In fact, it happened as soon as you "won."

http://www.cbpp.org/images/chartbook_images/2.2.3-U6-OPT.jpg

[Cigar]

The question is why that choice, cigar. We already know you made a choice. Be informative.

What change?

My personal definition is ...

Progressive ... NOT Regressive.

Forward ... NOT Backwards

Open-minded ... NOT Closed-minded

For The People ... NOT Some of those people

[Cigar]

Some of the politically ignorant would assume the previous 8 years would have Zero affect on the year 2009.

... I mean really folks ... are we all to believe 2008 didn't happen. :rollseyes:

[Mainecoons]

You must have missed this one. Another great ObamaChange.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/gregorymcneal/files/2012/10/LaborForceParticipation2001-2012-color1.gif
\

[Chris]

My personal definition is ...

Progressive ... NOT Regressive.

Forward ... NOT Backwards

Open-minded ... NOT Closed-minded

For The People ... NOT Some of those people

So you can't be specific, you defend Obama with generalities.

[Chris]

Some of the politically ignorant would assume the previous 8 years would have Zero affect on the year 2009.

... I mean really folks ... are we all to believe 2008 didn't happen. :rollseyes:

And yet you cannot specify those effects.

[Mainecoons]

Nor can he explain why they are still going on five years later, the longest recession in history.

When you get right down to it, he can't explain anything. A true blind follower.

[Chloe]

This last election was my first one and some of my friends were critical of me for "wasting" my first presidential vote by voting for Jill Stein instead of Obama but I don't regret it at all. President Obama in my opinion has definitely been a disappointment when it comes to things like human rights, foreign policy, green energy, and many other things. It's sad that all of those promises and positive messages have barely happened, if at all. I soooo wanted to vote for him the first time he ran but I was too young, but I'm glad I was too young now looking back.

[Cigar]

So you can't be specific, you defend Obama with generalities.

Specifically ... Liberals and Progressives care about ALL Americas.

You don't have to like my answer ... really ... it's OK ... but it's the answer you're going to get, like it or not.

[GrumpyDog]

I been disillusioned with Obama since NDAA 2012. I notice he seems real buddie friends with GW Bush and Senile Bush. I noticed that about Clinton too. I am suspicious and have been since JFK got terminated, and the suspect Lee Harvey Oswald got terminated, and Jack Ruby who killed LHO before trial got terminated, and Mafia boss who supposedly Ruby was in with, got found dead in a barrel floating, and hundreds of other witnesses died in mysterious ways in such a close grouping that it defies all probability of mere coincidence.

[Cigar]

Nor can he explain why they are still going on five years later, the longest recession in history.

When you get right down to it, he can't explain anything. A true blind follower.

It's the year 2013 ... I don't owe you an explanation on Jack-Shit

You'll take the explanation I give you, if I chose to give you one ... and you'll like it. :grin:

Welcome to your new reality.

[Chris]

Specifically ... Liberals and Progressives care about ALL Americas.

You don't have to like my answer ... really ... it's OK ... but it's the answer you're going to get, like it or not.

One, false, two, not a change, three, not a reason you support Obama. It's not a matter of disliking your non-answer.

Try chloe's approach, nice, clean, reasoned, articulate. I may disagree with her, but I've got something of substance to disagree with. With you, like nic, it's all evasive games.

[KC]

This last election was my first one and some of my friends were critical of me for "wasting" my first presidential vote by voting for Jill Stein instead of Obama but I don't regret it at all. President Obama in my opinion has definitely been a disappointment when it comes to things like human rights, foreign policy, green energy, and many other things. It's sad that all of those promises and positive messages have barely happened, if at all. I soooo wanted to vote for him the first time he ran but I was too young, but I'm glad I was too young now looking back.

Your position on Obama is totally logical. What I don't understand is why so many who agree with your political stance still follow President Obama.

[Chloe]

Your position on Obama is totally logical. What I don't understand is why so many who agree with your political stance still follow President Obama.

Probably because they don't want to feel like they are wasting their vote by going third party (which isn't a waste) or letting a republican get into office by not voting at all. That's the problem with letting two parties dictate everything. It severely limits true change and limits the varieties of ideas that could come from multiple equal parties or no parties at all in my opinion.

[Cigar]

Your position on Obama is totally logical. What I don't understand is why so many who agree with your political stance still follow President Obama.

CHOICE ... only 3 more years for you to get over it.

[Chris]

Probably because they don't want to feel like they are wasting their vote by going third party (which isn't a waste) or letting a republican get into office by not voting at all. That's the problem with letting two parties dictate everything. It severely limits true change and limits the varieties of ideas that could come from multiple equal parties or no parties at all in my opinion.

Or they don't want to feel they (past tense) wasted their vote. When Obama ran the first time, my blue dog dag and I argued and argued, my mother near had a fit! About two, three years into Obama's turn, my dad looked at me one day, and said, I really made a mistake. What? Voting for Obama, he's no different than that bum Bush. Well, vote smarter next time.

[Chloe]

CHOICE ... only 3 more years for you to get over it.

Sincere question Cigar...

Are there any issues, actions, or inactions that President Obama has done or not done that you disagree with or are disappointed with?

[Cigar]

Sincere question @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294)...

Are there any issues, actions, or inactions that President Obama has done or not done that you disagree with or are disappointed with?

I'm totally pissed that he's playing politics with The Environment and not fighting stronger for Infrastructure Investment.

I don't have to like everything about a President, to support a President.

[Chloe]

I'm totally pissed that he's playing politics with The Environment and not fighting stronger for Infrastructure Investment.

I don't have to like everything about a President, to support a President.

I know but sometimes it would good to hear that sort of stuff from you every so often so that we know that you are human, like Obama is human. :)

[Common]

This is a question I have often asked myself. Why would a progressive individual support a president whose policies are contrary to his or her ideology?

Most progressives were opposed to the PATRIOT Act, yet Obama has repeatedly defended it and contributed further to the erosion of civil liberties. His pro-corporate economic policy has lead to record high profits among the largest corporations, an explicitly pro corporate health reform and vast economic inequality. President Obama's decision to arm the Syrian rebels is the sort of foreign interventionism that progressives often soundly reject. What is it about this president that keeps progressives convinced of his intentions?

Simple you have two choices, to give you an example. If your a working person to vote for teaparty candidate is committing suicide, they are NOT going to have your interests at heart whatsoever.
So if your choice boils down to an obama who does things you dont like and Romney who not only will do things you dont like but he will take from you to give to the rich. Example of which is cut unemployment, cut social security, cut medicare, cut medicaid, cut food stamps and give the rich another tax cut. Who do you vote for.

[Cigar]

I know but sometimes it would good to hear that sort of stuff from you every so often so that we know that you are human, like Obama is human. :)

It's more than obvious that as a Woman, if you Vote Conservative, you will Vote yourself backwards centuries.

If that isn't obvious, don't worry, you'll soon not have a Vote anyway if Conservatives have their way.

[Mainecoons]

Why am I not surprised that you gave her just more BS instead of answering her question?

[Chris]

It's more than obvious that as a Woman, if you Vote Conservative, you will Vote yourself backwards centuries.

If that isn't obvious, don't worry, you'll soon not have a Vote anyway if Conservatives have their way.

Explain, in a reasonable way, how that's so, cigar.

[Mainecoons]

Yes and please provide links to mainstream conservative groups advocating ending the vote for women. Even for a guy who sets the gold standard for stupid posts here, this is one of the stupidest yet, Cigar.

Chloe, now you see why when it comes to Cigar, there's nothing there but a bag of wind and blind following of Obama because he's "black."

[Cigar]

I guess you have to be a Liberal to understand individuals explanations and not once that come from FoxNews

I've given my answer, if some don't like it or understand it, then I'm satisfied that my job is done.

[Cigar]

Yes and please provide links to mainstream conservative groups advocating ending the vote for women. Even for a guy who sets the gold standard for stupid posts here, this is one of the stupidest yet, Cigar.

Chloe, now you see why when it comes to Cigar, there's nothing there but a bag of wind and blind following of Obama because he's "black."

If it bothers you, it delights me ... an additional 3 years. :grin:

[Chris]

I guess you have to be a Liberal to understand individuals explanations and not once that come from FoxNews

I've given my answer, if some don't like it or understand it, then I'm satisfied that my job is done.

But you raised a new issue about conservatives and women. Please explain.

BTW, I don't watch FoxNews, in fact rarely watch TV news, but for CNN coverage of the trial, FoxNews was as lousy as MSNBC on that. They all gab too much.

[jillian]

This is a question I have often asked myself. Why would a progressive individual support a president whose policies are contrary to his or her ideology?

Most progressives were opposed to the PATRIOT Act, yet Obama has repeatedly defended it and contributed further to the erosion of civil liberties. His pro-corporate economic policy has lead to record high profits among the largest corporations, an explicitly pro corporate health reform and vast economic inequality. President Obama's decision to arm the Syrian rebels is the sort of foreign interventionism that progressives often soundly reject. What is it about this president that keeps progressives convinced of his intentions?

Who should progressives support? Radical right wingers who hate gubmint .... Except when it legislates their religion.

[Chris]

Who should progressives support? Radical right wingers who hate gubmint .... Except when it legislates their religion.

Another nice political gadfly diversion. Look at chloe's responses for good thoughtful, intelligent liberal posts. Try it sometime. It won't hurt that much.

[patrickt]

This is a question I have often asked myself. Why would a progressive individual support a president whose policies are contrary to his or her ideology?

Most progressives were opposed to the PATRIOT Act, yet Obama has repeatedly defended it and contributed further to the erosion of civil liberties. His pro-corporate economic policy has lead to record high profits among the largest corporations, an explicitly pro corporate health reform and vast economic inequality. President Obama's decision to arm the Syrian rebels is the sort of foreign interventionism that progressives often soundly reject. What is it about this president that keeps progressives convinced of his intentions?

A. He's black. Or as the New York Times would say, a white black.
B. He was raised with a communist tutor and is devoted to the cause
C. The fact he's an incompetent tyrant doesn't alter his beliefs.

[jillian]

Another nice political gadfly diversion. Look at chloe's responses for good thoughtful, intelligent liberal posts. Try it sometime. It won't hurt that much.

poor butthurt baby.

soooo emotional....

now stop with the ad homs and be a good little troll.

[KC]

Who should progressives support? Radical right wingers who hate gubmint .... Except when it legislates their religion.

If I were progressive I would support only third party candidates. Both political parties obviously do not have the people's interests in mind.

[jillian]

If I were progressive I would support only third party candidates. Both political parties obviously do not have the people's interests in mind.

why? what third party has arisen that comes close to representing liberals, much less 'progressives'?

ron paul? er... nope...

ralph nader the narcissist?

ross perot the crazy guy?

what third party exists that can win and wouldn't leave us with a rightwinger as president?

[Chris]

poor butthurt baby.

soooo emotional....

now stop with the ad homs and be a good little troll.

Don't beat yourself up so bad, jillian, instead try in an intellectually honest way to stick to the topic and answer the question.

Do you realize how much of a walking talking self-contradiction you are to use ad hom to tell someone to stop using ad hom?

[Chris]

why? what third party has arisen that comes close to representing liberals, much less 'progressives'?

ron paul? er... nope...

ralph nader the narcissist?

ross perot the crazy guy?

what third party exists that can win and wouldn't leave us with a rightwinger as president?

Obama, your leftwingnut, is doing such a good job? That's the topic you're avoiding.

[Chloe]

why? what third party has arisen that comes close to representing liberals, much less 'progressives'?

ron paul? er... nope...

ralph nader the narcissist?

ross perot the crazy guy?

what third party exists that can win and wouldn't leave us with a rightwinger as president?

It's not the fault of the third parties and candidates though it's the fact that the two major parties are soooo wrapped up in so much money, connections, and political power that there is no room for competition. We shouldn't just accept that as normal though in my opinion. It's actually a big problem I think. When you almost have to pick one or the other in order to maaaaybe have one of your beliefs recognized then that's not good in my opinion.

[KC]

why? what third party has arisen that comes close to representing liberals, much less 'progressives'?

ron paul? er... nope...

ralph nader the narcissist?

ross perot the crazy guy?

what third party exists that can win and wouldn't leave us with a rightwinger as president?

No third party exists that can win. But winning means very little if the winning choice is just as abusive as the other options. I am just wondering why progressives support a president who doesn't have their best interests in mind.

Personally I have no problem throwing my vote behind candidates who ave absolutely no chance of winning. If both parties are sell outs to corporate America, continuously erode our civil liberties andput the people last, then why does it matter if the candidate is left or right wing?

[Common]

No third party exists that can win. But winning means very little if the winning choice is just as abusive as the other options. I am just wondering why progressives support a president who doesn't have their best interests in mind.

Personally I have no problem throwing my vote behind candidates who ave absolutely no chance of winning. If both parties are sell outs to corporate America, continuously erode our civil liberties andput the people last, then why does it matter if the candidate is left or right wing?

Kc, ive been voting since I was 21 and its the same today as it was then, you have two choices on election day. You know going in that most of what they tell you during the campaign is a lie that they have no intention of doing or they couldnt get it done even if they tried. So whats left ?
You base your vote on which of the two you believe will do the most for you, because if you try to base on whats good for the country you might as well not vote because neither of them are going to do that. Its all IDEOLOGY and which candidate dances more to your tune. All the rest is BS and a song and a dance.

[Chloe]

Progressives have a lot of options besides the Democratic Party i think. For example I'm a registered Pacific Green here and when I compare their political platform to the Democratic Party's platform there are differences, and those differences make it easier for me to know where I truly stand. However, since there is so much money and connections that keep the democrats in power it's really tough for greens to make any headway. There's no TV time, no major endorsements, and so on because people feel obligated to support only the republicans or democrats in spite of the fact that the two parties are not all that unique or truly representative.

[KC]

Kc, ive been voting since I was 21 and its the same today as it was then, you have two choices on election day. You know going in that most of what they tell you during the campaign is a lie that they have no intention of doing or they couldnt get it done even if they tried. So whats left ?
You base your vote on which of the two you believe will do the most for you, because if you try to base on whats good for the country you might as well not vote because neither of them are going to do that. Its all IDEOLOGY and which candidate dances more to your tune. All the rest is BS and a song and a dance.

No, you have several choices on election day. You may not choose them because you know they will not win, but if the winning candidate is just as bad as the next guy then victory is hollow. I'd rather choose a loser I like than a winning corporate candidate.

[Chloe]

No third party exists that can win. But winning means very little if the winning choice is just as abusive as the other options. I am just wondering why progressives support a president who doesn't have their best interests in mind.

Personally I have no problem throwing my vote behind candidates who ave absolutely no chance of winning. If both parties are sell outs to corporate America, continuously erode our civil liberties andput the people last, then why does it matter if the candidate is left or right wing?

I don't consider it a wasted vote at all if you vote for a third party candidate. You vote for the person that you believe has the best interest of the country in mind and who shares the majority of your own personal beliefs and values. Voting for someone to beat someone else is not what it should be about in my opinion. I've said it before that I'd gladly throw away my vote again for president as long as I know that I voted for the person that shares my beliefs and would do the most good.

[Chris]

I don't consider it a wasted vote to not vote.

http://i.snag.gy/eq09e.jpg

[Common]

Progressives have a lot of options besides the Democratic Party i think. For example I'm a registered Pacific Green here and when I compare their political platform to the Democratic Party's platform there are differences, and those differences make it easier for me to know where I truly stand. However, since there is so much money and connections that keep the democrats in power it's really tough for greens to make any headway. There's no TV time, no major endorsements, and so on because people feel obligated to support only the republicans or democrats in spite of the fact that the two parties are not all that unique or truly representative.

Your great grandkids wont see a pacific green candidate win an election chloe, thats why it always boils down to two choices.

[Common]

No, you have several choices on election day. You may not choose them because you know they will not win, but if the winning candidate is just as bad as the next guy then victory is hollow. I'd rather choose a loser I like than a winning corporate candidate.

Serves no purpose and you may wind up with the worst of the two choices. See my point.

[Chris]

Serves no purpose and you may wind up with the worst of the two choices. See my point.

The old worst of two evils argument. Evil is evil.

[patrickt]

Progressives have had the Communist Party of America for generations. President Roosevelt's communist vice president Henry Wallace ran as a progressive to avoid identification as a communist. Isn't it time to get over that.

[IMPress Polly]

KC wrote:
This is a question I have often asked myself. Why would a progressive individual support a president whose policies are contrary to his or her ideology?

Most progressives were opposed to the PATRIOT Act, yet Obama has repeatedly defended it and contributed further to the erosion of civil liberties. His pro-corporate economic policy has lead to record high profits among the largest corporations, an explicitly pro corporate health reform and vast economic inequality. President Obama's decision to arm the Syrian rebels is the sort of foreign interventionism that progressives often soundly reject. What is it about this president that keeps progressives convinced of his intentions?


Chloe wrote:
This last election was my first one and some of my friends were critical of me for "wasting" my first presidential vote by voting for Jill Stein instead of Obama but I don't regret it at all. President Obama in my opinion has definitely been a disappointment when it comes to things like human rights, foreign policy, green energy, and many other things. It's sad that all of those promises and positive messages have barely happened, if at all. I soooo wanted to vote for him the first time he ran but I was too young, but I'm glad I was too young now looking back.

First off, let me say that this is a great and worthwhile topic because this sort of thing comes up every election cycle without fail, and it will again the next time we have an election! I think it's a good idea for us to go ahead and get our views on this subject out there right now, while we're in the proverbial election off-season! Okay, that said...

My situation this last election season (last year) was much the opposite of Chloe's, given that most of my friends are socialists and communists and kind of utopian in their thinking. Most of my friends (whom I'll concede are mostly online friends) tried to persuade me either to stay home on election day out of protest or to cast a "protest ballot" for any of a handful of socialist candidates lacking a snowball's chance in hell of winning the presidency. Though I had voted in the three previous election cycles, in 2008 and 2010 I had refrained from voting by way of similar moralizing: Obama's a supporter of the capitalist system and therefore must be rejected. It was about posturing. It was about establishing my "socialist credentials" to impress my friends. I wasn't being serious or taking the issues of the day seriously. I told people that if everyone just stayed home, the election, and its narrow spectrum of debate, would be seen as illegitimate, knowing full well all along that a boycott would never materialize. Then I grew up and learned to actually care about the real-world consequences of my actions. I started to think less selfishly and more strategically. In 2012 I returned to voting, and I voted with the combination of my heart and my head that made the most sense to me. I'm probably the most ideologically left wing member of this message board, so you won't be surprised to learn that OF COURSE I too had major areas of disagreement with President Obama and his policies! However, I concluded that the perfect is not the enemy of the good, but simply a degree of goodness and one that could not be attained in a single fell swoop. Applying this strategic nuance, I examined the plausible outcomes of the election and quickly realized that the American proletariat* was not on board with the more "ideologically clean" candidates and couldn't be won to any of them in that cycle. As a serious Marxist, that's what mattered the most to me. It makes no sense, from the standpoint of advancing proletarian politics, to vote in a different way than the proletariat. You'll be alone. The American proletariat knows that its ranks are not yet large enough to successfully rebel and form an independent party of its own and accordingly opts to strategically remain in the Democratic Party for the time being as a result. I voted with them and rejoiced with them that the far worse alternative went down to defeat. This doesn't make me a centrist like the president and, as I'm sure you've all noticed by now, it doesn't render me unwilling to oppose the president when he pursues right wing and imperialist policies. It simply suggests that I was convinced that a Mitt Romney presidency was the sole real-world alternative to Obama's re-election. Can you even imagine where we'd be if that man were president right now? The man proposed to privatize both Social Security and Medicare! He proposed to repeal the Affordable Care Act entirely, to cancel the Afghanistan withdrawal timetable, to eradicate the last of our campaign finance laws, to effectively do away with Planned Parenthood, to actively resist attempts to legalize same-sex marriage, and worse! He saw Arizona's infamous, and fortunately short-lived "papers, please" immigration law as a going model for the nation! I point these things out simply to remind my fellow progressives of what exactly the alternative was here. Seriously. If you honestly think I regret my vote, you've lost it. Three magic words solved my moral dilemmas: consider the alternative. Would the alternative have been better or worse for the American and international proletariat? My conclusion was an easy "no". For me, a list of moral complaints about a given Democrat's politics and record a mile long isn't necessarily enough by itself to justify a third party vote. One must return to the three magic words and think strategically, not just ideologically. Think in terms of what will actually advance the issues you care about in the real world.

I know I said above that my motives for rejecting the Democrats in 2008 and 2010 were selfish. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not accusing anyone of anything here. I'm simply recommending that the third party people examine your motives. If, when you're honest with yourself, you find that your motives for voting the way you do (or for opting not to vote altogether, as applicable) are to shock or impress other people rather than to achieve a positive real-world outcome, it might be time to reconsider your current path; to reconsider your own moral level rather than that of other people (like the president). I say all this not as someone who opposes third party politics (I belong to a left wing third party, after all!), but as someone who understands the importance of strategic nuance to advancing the causes one believes in.

* Once more, by this term I refer specifically to the poor generally and also what I call working class people (by which I mean workers live at a subsistence level).


Chloe also wrote:
It's not the fault of the third parties and candidates though it's the fact that the two major parties are soooo wrapped up in so much money, connections, and political power that there is no room for competition. We shouldn't just accept that as normal though in my opinion. It's actually a big problem I think. When you almost have to pick one or the other in order to maaaaybe have one of your beliefs recognized then that's not good in my opinion.

I understand what you're saying here, but I guess I've begun a little more deterministic about things over the years. We don't live in fantasy land where anything becomes possible when a small group of people wants it. The class composition of the society one lives in, and thus its according balance of ideological forces, must be considered. If there isn't an adequate social base in this society at this time for the advancement of such progressive ideas as the likes of Jill Stein would advocate, then it's simply not going to be possible for people like her to win any major election contests.

[Chris]

First off, let me say that this is a great and worthwhile topic because this sort of thing comes up every election cycle without fail, and it will again the next time we have an election! I think it's a good idea for us to go ahead and get our views on this subject out there right now, while we're in the proverbial election off-season! Okay, that said...

My situation this last election season (last year) was much the opposite of Chloe's, given that most of my friends are socialists and communists and kind of utopian in their thinking. Most of my friends (whom I'll concede are mostly online friends) tried to persuade me either to stay home on election day out of protest or to cast a "protest ballot" for any of a handful of socialist candidates lacking a snowball's chance in hell of winning the presidency. Though I had voted in the three previous election cycles, in 2008 and 2010 I had refrained from voting by way of similar moralizing: Obama's a supporter of the capitalist system and therefore must be rejected. It was about posturing. It was about establishing my "socialist credentials" to impress my friends. I wasn't being serious or taking the issues of the day seriously. I told people that if everyone just stayed home, the election, and its narrow spectrum of debate, would be seen as illegitimate, knowing full well all along that a boycott would never materialize. Then I grew up and learned to actually care about the real-world consequences of my actions. I started to think less selfishly and more strategically. In 2012 I returned to voting, and I voted with the combination of my heart and my head that made the most sense to me. I'm probably the most ideologically left wing member of this message board, so you won't be surprised to learn that OF COURSE I too had major areas of disagreement with President Obama and his policies! However, I concluded that the perfect is not the enemy of the good, but simply a degree of goodness and one that could not be attained in a single fell swoop. Applying this strategic nuance, I examined the plausible outcomes of the election and quickly realized that the American proletariat* was not on board with the more "ideologically clean" candidates and couldn't be won to any of them in that cycle. As a serious Marxist, that's what mattered the most to me. It makes no sense, from the standpoint of advancing proletarian politics, to vote in a different way than the proletariat. You'll be alone. The American proletariat knows that its ranks are not yet large enough to successfully rebel and form an independent party of its own and accordingly opts to strategically remain in the Democratic Party for the time being as a result. I voted with them and rejoiced with them that the far worse alternative went down to defeat. This doesn't make me a centrist like the president and, as I'm sure you've all noticed by now, it doesn't render me unwilling to oppose the president when he pursues right wing and imperialist policies. It simply suggests that I was convinced that a Mitt Romney presidency was sole real-world alternative to Obama's re-election. Can you even imagine where we'd be if that man were president right now? The man proposed to privatize both Social Security and Medicare! He proposed to the Affordable Care Act entirely, to cancel the Afghanistan withdrawal timetable, to eradicate the last of our campaign finance laws, to effectively do away with Planned Parenthood, to actively resist attempts to legalize same-sex marriage, and worse! He saw Arizona's infamous, and fortunately short-lived "papers, please" immigration law as a going model for the nation! I point these things out simply to remind my fellow progressives of what exactly the alternative was here. Seriously. If you honestly think I regret my vote, you've lost it. Three magic words solved my moral dilemmas: consider the alternative. Would the alternative have been better or worse for the American and international proletariat? My conclusion was an easy "no". For me, a list of moral complaints a mile long isn't necessarily enough by itself to justify a third party vote. One must return to the three magic words and think strategically, not just ideologically. Think in terms of what will actually advance the issues you care about in the real world.

I know I said above that my motives for rejecting the Democrats in 2008 and 2010 were selfish. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not accusing anyone of anything here. I'm simply recommending that the third party people examine your motives. If, when you're honest with yourself, you find that your motives for voting the way you do (or opting not to vote altogether) are to shock or impress other people rather than to achieve a positive real-world outcome, it might be time to reconsider your current path. I say all this not as someone who opposes third party politics (I belong to a left wing third party, after all!), but as someone who understands the importance of strategic nuance to advancing the causes one believes in.

* Once more, by this term I refer specifically to the poor generally and also what I call working class people (by which I mean workers live at a subsistence level).



I understand what you're saying here, but I guess I'm a little more deterministic about things. We don't live in fantasy land where anything becomes possible when a small group of people wants it. The class composition of the society one lives in, and thus its according balance of ideological forces, must be considered. If there isn't an adequate social base in this society for the advancement of such progressive ideas as the likes of Jill Stein would advocate then it's simply not going to be possible for people like her to win any major election contests.


I'm probably the most ideologically left wing member of this message board, so you won't be surprised to learn that OF COURSE I too had major areas of disagreement with President Obama and his policies!

Since the question of the topic is "Why would a progressive support President Obama?" and that's the only thing you say in response to it in your long post, could you elaborate your disagreements?

[nic34]

One, false, two, not a change, three, not a reason you support Obama. It's not a matter of disliking your non-answer.

Try chloe's approach, nice, clean, reasoned, articulate. I may disagree with her, but I've got something of substance to disagree with. With you, like nic, it's all evasive games.

You should talk...

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
Since the question of the topic is "Why would a progressive support President Obama?" and that's the only thing you say in response to it in your long post, could you elaborate your disagreements?

Sure: Earlier this year, I listed what I considered the ten best and worst actions Obama took during his first term in office here. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/10018-The-Ten-Best-and-Worst-Actions-of-Obama-s-First-Term) My view on that hasn't really changed. If I had to add this year, the next item on the list of worst actions would be arming the foreign elements invading Syria (or the "Syrian rebels", as our press refers to them). Conversely, the next items on the list of best actions, if it included this year, would be the decision to begin phasing out the so-called global war on terror and the executive actions he's recently announced he'll be undertaking to further address global warming.

[nic34]

First off, let me say that this is a great and worthwhile topic because this sort of thing comes up every election cycle without fail, and it will again the next time we have an election! I think it's a good idea for us to go ahead and get our views on this subject out there right now, while we're in the proverbial election off-season! Okay, that said...

My situation this last election season (last year) was much the opposite of Chloe's, given that most of my friends are socialists and communists and kind of utopian in their thinking. Most of my friends (whom I'll concede are mostly online friends) tried to persuade me either to stay home on election day out of protest or to cast a "protest ballot" for any of a handful of socialist candidates lacking a snowball's chance in hell of winning the presidency. Though I had voted in the three previous election cycles, in 2008 and 2010 I had refrained from voting by way of similar moralizing: Obama's a supporter of the capitalist system and therefore must be rejected. It was about posturing. It was about establishing my "socialist credentials" to impress my friends. I wasn't being serious or taking the issues of the day seriously. I told people that if everyone just stayed home, the election, and its narrow spectrum of debate, would be seen as illegitimate, knowing full well all along that a boycott would never materialize. Then I grew up and learned to actually care about the real-world consequences of my actions. I started to think less selfishly and more strategically. In 2012 I returned to voting, and I voted with the combination of my heart and my head that made the most sense to me. I'm probably the most ideologically left wing member of this message board, so you won't be surprised to learn that OF COURSE I too had major areas of disagreement with President Obama and his policies! However, I concluded that the perfect is not the enemy of the good, but simply a degree of goodness and one that could not be attained in a single fell swoop. Applying this strategic nuance, I examined the plausible outcomes of the election and quickly realized that the American proletariat* was not on board with the more "ideologically clean" candidates and couldn't be won to any of them in that cycle. As a serious Marxist, that's what mattered the most to me. It makes no sense, from the standpoint of advancing proletarian politics, to vote in a different way than the proletariat. You'll be alone. The American proletariat knows that its ranks are not yet large enough to successfully rebel and form an independent party of its own and accordingly opts to strategically remain in the Democratic Party for the time being as a result. I voted with them and rejoiced with them that the far worse alternative went down to defeat. This doesn't make me a centrist like the president and, as I'm sure you've all noticed by now, it doesn't render me unwilling to oppose the president when he pursues right wing and imperialist policies. It simply suggests that I was convinced that a Mitt Romney presidency was the sole real-world alternative to Obama's re-election. Can you even imagine where we'd be if that man were president right now? The man proposed to privatize both Social Security and Medicare! He proposed to repeal the Affordable Care Act entirely, to cancel the Afghanistan withdrawal timetable, to eradicate the last of our campaign finance laws, to effectively do away with Planned Parenthood, to actively resist attempts to legalize same-sex marriage, and worse! He saw Arizona's infamous, and fortunately short-lived "papers, please" immigration law as a going model for the nation! I point these things out simply to remind my fellow progressives of what exactly the alternative was here. Seriously. If you honestly think I regret my vote, you've lost it. Three magic words solved my moral dilemmas: consider the alternative. Would the alternative have been better or worse for the American and international proletariat? My conclusion was an easy "no". For me, a list of moral complaints about a given Democrat's politics and record a mile long isn't necessarily enough by itself to justify a third party vote. One must return to the three magic words and think strategically, not just ideologically. Think in terms of what will actually advance the issues you care about in the real world.

I know I said above that my motives for rejecting the Democrats in 2008 and 2010 were selfish. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not accusing anyone of anything here. I'm simply recommending that the third party people examine your motives. If, when you're honest with yourself, you find that your motives for voting the way you do (or for opting not to vote altogether, as applicable) are to shock or impress other people rather than to achieve a positive real-world outcome, it might be time to reconsider your current path; to reconsider your own moral level rather than that of other people (like the president). I say all this not as someone who opposes third party politics (I belong to a left wing third party, after all!), but as someone who understands the importance of strategic nuance to advancing the causes one believes in.

* Once more, by this term I refer specifically to the poor generally and also what I call working class people (by which I mean workers live at a subsistence level).



I understand what you're saying here, but I guess I've begun a little more deterministic about things over the years. We don't live in fantasy land where anything becomes possible when a small group of people wants it. The class composition of the society one lives in, and thus its according balance of ideological forces, must be considered. If there isn't an adequate social base in this society at this time for the advancement of such progressive ideas as the likes of Jill Stein would advocate, then it's simply not going to be possible for people like her to win any major election contests.

I think you summed it up well polly.

Chloe voting for Stein in a blue state is a good idea, we want them to get the percentages necessary to receive public dollars. Voices from progressives is what's needed to push the Dems to the left of center where many seem to gravitate.

It's different in my purple state here where I needed to vote Dem. What's going on now is that there are nearly as many registered independents like myself as the other 2 parties now and they have become the difference makers. Lately, conservatives have begun to loose indys over immigration, education and healthcare. Even Brewer recognized the necessity of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

Without a centrist Obama we wouldn't even have a conversation on any of that.

.

[Chris]

You should talk...

I do.

[Chris]

Sure: Earlier this year, I listed what I considered the ten best and worst actions Obama took during his first term in office here. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/10018-The-Ten-Best-and-Worst-Actions-of-Obama-s-First-Term) My view on that hasn't really changed. If I had to add this year, the next item on the list of worst actions would be arming the foreign elements invading Syria (or the "Syrian rebels", as our press refers to them). Conversely, the next items on the list of best actions, if it included this year, would be the decision to begin phasing out the so-called global war on terror and the executive actions he's recently announced he'll be undertaking to further address global warming.

Appreciated. Thanks for the articulate response.

[Chris]

I think you summed it up well polly.

Chloe voting for Stein in a blue state is a good idea, we want them to get the percentages necessary to receive public dollars. Voices from progressives is what's needed to push the Dems to the left of center where many seem to gravitate.

It's different in my purple state here where I needed to vote Dem. What's going on now is that there are nearly as many registered independents like myself as the other 2 parties now and they have become the difference makers. Lately, conservatives have begun to loose indys over immigration, education and healthcare. Even Brewer recognized the necessity of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

Without a centrist Obama we wouldn't even have a conversation on any of that.

.

Centrist Obama? How so, in your opinion?

[Peter1469]

First off, let me say that this is a great and worthwhile topic because this sort of thing comes up every election cycle without fail, and it will again the next time we have an election! I think it's a good idea for us to go ahead and get our views on this subject out there right now, while we're in the proverbial election off-season! Okay, that said...

My situation this last election season (last year) was much the opposite of Chloe's, given that most of my friends are socialists and communists and kind of utopian in their thinking. Most of my friends (whom I'll concede are mostly online friends) tried to persuade me either to stay home on election day out of protest or to cast a "protest ballot" for any of a handful of socialist candidates lacking a snowball's chance in hell of winning the presidency. Though I had voted in the three previous election cycles, in 2008 and 2010 I had refrained from voting by way of similar moralizing: Obama's a supporter of the capitalist system and therefore must be rejected. It was about posturing. It was about establishing my "socialist credentials" to impress my friends. I wasn't being serious or taking the issues of the day seriously. I told people that if everyone just stayed home, the election, and its narrow spectrum of debate, would be seen as illegitimate, knowing full well all along that a boycott would never materialize. Then I grew up and learned to actually care about the real-world consequences of my actions. I started to think less selfishly and more strategically. In 2012 I returned to voting, and I voted with the combination of my heart and my head that made the most sense to me. I'm probably the most ideologically left wing member of this message board, so you won't be surprised to learn that OF COURSE I too had major areas of disagreement with President Obama and his policies! However, I concluded that the perfect is not the enemy of the good, but simply a degree of goodness and one that could not be attained in a single fell swoop. Applying this strategic nuance, I examined the plausible outcomes of the election and quickly realized that the American proletariat* was not on board with the more "ideologically clean" candidates and couldn't be won to any of them in that cycle. As a serious Marxist, that's what mattered the most to me. It makes no sense, from the standpoint of advancing proletarian politics, to vote in a different way than the proletariat. You'll be alone. The American proletariat knows that its ranks are not yet large enough to successfully rebel and form an independent party of its own and accordingly opts to strategically remain in the Democratic Party for the time being as a result. I voted with them and rejoiced with them that the far worse alternative went down to defeat. This doesn't make me a centrist like the president and, as I'm sure you've all noticed by now, it doesn't render me unwilling to oppose the president when he pursues right wing and imperialist policies. It simply suggests that I was convinced that a Mitt Romney presidency was the sole real-world alternative to Obama's re-election. Can you even imagine where we'd be if that man were president right now? The man proposed to privatize both Social Security and Medicare! He proposed to repeal the Affordable Care Act entirely, to cancel the Afghanistan withdrawal timetable, to eradicate the last of our campaign finance laws, to effectively do away with Planned Parenthood, to actively resist attempts to legalize same-sex marriage, and worse! He saw Arizona's infamous, and fortunately short-lived "papers, please" immigration law as a going model for the nation! I point these things out simply to remind my fellow progressives of what exactly the alternative was here. Seriously. If you honestly think I regret my vote, you've lost it. Three magic words solved my moral dilemmas: consider the alternative. Would the alternative have been better or worse for the American and international proletariat? My conclusion was an easy "no". For me, a list of moral complaints about a given Democrat's politics and record a mile long isn't necessarily enough by itself to justify a third party vote. One must return to the three magic words and think strategically, not just ideologically. Think in terms of what will actually advance the issues you care about in the real world.

I know I said above that my motives for rejecting the Democrats in 2008 and 2010 were selfish. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not accusing anyone of anything here. I'm simply recommending that the third party people examine your motives. If, when you're honest with yourself, you find that your motives for voting the way you do (or for opting not to vote altogether, as applicable) are to shock or impress other people rather than to achieve a positive real-world outcome, it might be time to reconsider your current path; to reconsider your own moral level rather than that of other people (like the president). I say all this not as someone who opposes third party politics (I belong to a left wing third party, after all!), but as someone who understands the importance of strategic nuance to advancing the causes one believes in.

* Once more, by this term I refer specifically to the poor generally and also what I call working class people (by which I mean workers live at a subsistence level).



I understand what you're saying here, but I guess I've begun a little more deterministic about things over the years. We don't live in fantasy land where anything becomes possible when a small group of people wants it. The class composition of the society one lives in, and thus its according balance of ideological forces, must be considered. If there isn't an adequate social base in this society at this time for the advancement of such progressive ideas as the likes of Jill Stein would advocate, then it's simply not going to be possible for people like her to win any major election contests.

I didn't see much difference between Obama and Mitt. They both believed in too much State control over our lives.

A please Polly, I ask for more paragraphs. :laugh:

[Peter1469]

Centrist Obama? How so, in your opinion?

From the PoV of a true socialist / Marxist, Obama is a centrist.

[Chris]

I didn't see much difference between Obama and Mitt. They both believed in too much State control over our lives.

A please Polly, I ask for more paragraphs. :laugh:

Exactly, just another Bush clone like Obama is.

I stopped listening when during a town hall he said "My promise is to help you and your family."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA

[patrickt]

Gov. Romney wouldn't have been my choice in an open field but if it's between Gov. Romney and a racist who hates America, I'll got with Gov. Romney. I even held my nose and voted for the liberal Sen. McCain because he was less liberal, less crazy, and less stupid that VP Al Gore.

[nic34]

Reagan was real trust worthy... he had to raise taxes 11 times during his administrations.... gotta pay for star wars somehow....

[nic34]

For the history revisionists...

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133489113/Reagan-Legacy-Clouds-Tax-Record

[GrassrootsConservative]

Reagan was real trust worthy... he had to raise taxes 11 times during his administrations.... gotta pay for star wars somehow....

Barack Obama has done more than that just in his first four years.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/11/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-has-raised-taxes-19-/


Of the 19 provisions Romney is citing, we conclude that 13 may be reasonably defined as taxes (though of those, only four are already in effect). Of the remaining six provisions Romney cites, we find two that are subject to disagreement and four that are probably not taxes at all. So, more than two-thirds of the 19 provisions Romney cited are pretty clearly taxes, but many of them are narrowly targeted at groups from tanning-bed users to health company CEOs. On balance, we rate the statement Half True.

It's wrong for him to do it too, right? Obama is untrustworthy too, right?

And we don't even have a 2nd Star Wars, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[GrassrootsConservative]

For the history revisionists...

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133489113/Reagan-Legacy-Clouds-Tax-Record

Reagan isn't the president.

:retard:

[Chris]

Reagan was real trust worthy... he had to raise taxes 11 times during his administrations.... gotta pay for star wars somehow....

Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times? The real story (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/#ixzz2ZJj9dFYA)


Ronald Reagan may have presided over the most significant tax reform effort in our nation’s history, yet historical revisionists are attempting to besmirch that legacy — while using him as a straw man against modern Republicans.

Saying Ronald Reagan raised taxes is like saying Michael Jordan was a guy who struck out a lot — or that he was a failed baseball player: It’s factually correct, but misleading, nonetheless.

...When Democrats or media embrace Reagan for “raising taxes X number of times,” they are usually engaging in willful obfuscation. This is because they know that when most people hear the words, “tax hike,” they naturally assume you mean raising income taxes. But tax rates (both nominal and effective) dropped dramatically across-the-board during Reagan’s tenure.

Not only did the top individual income tax rate go from 70 to 28 percent! — but the tax code was also indexed for inflation (this is a big deal, because inflation had heretofore pushed people into higher tax brackets — a double whammy.)

Yet the notion that Reagan was a tax-hiker has persisted.....

Swing and a miss, nic.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Lol so it's not even true, and yet I beat it to a pulp.

[Chris]

Reagan isn't the president.

:retard:

Any distraction will do for some.

What's funny is liberals who love tax hikes diss Reagan for it. Makes no sense.

[patrickt]

Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times? The real story (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/#ixzz2ZJj9dFYA)
Swing and a miss, nic.

Nonsense. It was a lie that you caught.

[nic34]

10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan


1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law (http://www.npr.org/2011/02/03/133456120/Remembering-Ronald-Reagan) the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/06/local/la-me-cap-20100607). As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times (http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133489113/Reagan-Legacy-Clouds-Tax-Record) in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes (http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133489113/Reagan-Legacy-Clouds-Tax-Record),” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

The other nine here:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/

[IMPress Polly]

Peter wrote:
From the PoV of a true socialist / Marxist, Obama is a centrist.

For example, we could turn to the view from People's World (the official online paper of the Communist Party USA), which offered this summation of Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address: "combative and centrist" (http://www.peoplesworld.org/obama-s-state-of-the-union-combative-and-centrist/). The CP is considered probably the most moderate Marxist political organization in the United States.

A centrist proposes government action to redress many of the public's grievances, but mostly in the form of market-based solutions (e.g. strategically-placed subsidies and tax breaks deemed to promote commercial investments that advance the national interest). A typical progressive, by contrast, might instead oppose corporate welfare generally and instead favor direct government actions to address economic grievances (e.g. public works programs). Your average genuine progressive probably favors bringing at least one whole industry under national ownership (e.g. state health insurance). Your average full-on socialist (like yours truly) will go further and propose national ownership of many industries deemed to especially important. A full-fledged communist will, in contrast, favor public ownership exclusively, believing that private property should be abolished. Obama falls into the first of these four center-left categories.

[Chris]

10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan


1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law (http://www.npr.org/2011/02/03/133456120/Remembering-Ronald-Reagan) the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/06/local/la-me-cap-20100607). As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times (http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133489113/Reagan-Legacy-Clouds-Tax-Record) in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes (http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133489113/Reagan-Legacy-Clouds-Tax-Record),” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

The other nine here:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/

Repeating your already debunked opinion. The topic is your corporatist crony capitalist social democrat, Obama.

[Chris]

For example, we could turn to the view from People's World (the official online paper of the Communist Party USA), which offered this summation of Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address: "combative and centrist" (http://www.peoplesworld.org/obama-s-state-of-the-union-combative-and-centrist/). The CP is considered probably the most moderate Marxist political organization in the United States.

A centrist proposes government action to redress many of the public's grievances, but mostly in the form of market-based solutions (e.g. strategically-placed subsidies and tax breaks deemed to promote commercial investments that advance the national interest). A typical progressive, by contrast, might instead oppose corporate welfare generally and instead favor direct government actions to address economic grievances (e.g. public works programs). Your average genuine progressive probably favors bringing at least one whole industry under national ownership (e.g. state health insurance). Your average full-on socialist (like yours truly) will go further and propose national ownership of many industries deemed to especially important. A full-fledged communist will, in contrast, favor public ownership exclusively, believing that private property should be abolished. Obama falls into the first of these four center-left categories.

I doubt many Progressives understand the sources of their ideology. I try to point out ties in their opinions to Marx and it just angers them. Do educate them.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Obama's tax increases are wrong too, right partisan hack nic34 ?

[nic34]

Repeating your already debunked opinion. The topic is your corporatist crony capitalist social democrat, Obama.

Presumptuous as usual....you Debunked nothing. You daily caller op even admits he raised taxes.

[Chris]

Presumptuous as usual....you Debunked nothing. You daily caller op even admits he raised taxes.

Yes, he did, but what's important is the type of taxes. Go back and read.

Still not clear why a liberal progressive like you criticizes the raising of taxes. Haven't you favored Obama doing that, like raising taxes to solve the fiscal cliff crisis, before trying to renege on cutting spending rate increases?

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
I doubt many Progressives understand the sources of their ideology. I try to point out ties in their opinions to Marx and it just angers them. Do educate them.

Marxism got pretty heavily stigmatized in this country during the Cold War. The combination of general affluence during that era on the one hand and extensive anti-communist state propaganda campaigns on the other, to say nothing of the actual political suppression of Marxist groups at many points (but especially in the early 1950s), did very real damage to the organizational power of the Marxist movement in America. As a result of that stigma, even today many leftists instinctively disassociate themselves from Marx for fear of being in turn associated with the legacy of the old Soviet Union or Mao-era China or something. The further in the past the Cold War gets though, the more that stigma evaporates. What I'm saying is that those who reject Marxism conceptually are rarely influenced significantly by his ideas. Socialistic and communistic ideas have existed far longer than Marx's rationalizations of them, one must remember. (They even exist outside the human species!) People can come to even radical left wing ideas from many different angles (e.g. perhaps religion, for example). Many prominent historical Americans described themselves as socialists at one or another point, yet had no ties to communist organizations and/or explicitly disowned Marxism conceptually: Upton Sinclair, Helen Keller, Albert Einstein, Malcolm X, even Martin Luther King late in his life. Even Mark Twain has been said to have developed some very left wing views by the end of his life as he sank into a more impoverished state. My point is that Marxism is only one road to the political left, and even to the radical left, albeit perhaps the most famous and IMO the best and most objective one.

[Chris]

Marxism got pretty heavily stigmatized in this country during the Cold War. The combination of general affluence during that era on the one hand and extensive anti-communist state propaganda campaigns on the other, to say nothing of the actual political suppression of Marxist groups at many points (but especially in the early 1950s), did very real damage to the organizational power of the Marxist movement in America. As a result of that stigma, even today many leftists instinctively disassociate themselves from Marx for fear of being in turn associated with the legacy of the old Soviet Union or Mao-era China or something. The further in the past the Cold War gets though, the more that stigma evaporates. What I'm saying is that those who reject Marxism conceptually are rarely influenced significantly by his ideas. Socialistic and communistic ideas have existed far longer than Marx's rationalizations of them, one must remember. People can come to even radical left wing ideas from many different angles (e.g. perhaps religion, for example). Many prominent historical Americans described themselves as socialists at one or another point, yet had no ties to communist organizations and/or explicitly disowned Marxism conceptually: Upton Sinclair, Helen Keller, Albert Einstein, Malcolm X, even Martin Luther King late in his life. Even Mark Twain has been said to have developed some very left wing views by the end of his life. My point is that Marxism is only one road to the political left, and even to the radical left, albeit perhaps the most famous and IMO the best and most objective one.


Marxism got pretty heavily stigmatized in this country during the Cold War.

At the same time it was indoctrinated into the public school system by progressives.


Socialistic and communistic ideas have existed far longer than Marx's rationalizations of them, one must remember.

Right, Marx, Marxism is a generic like band aid for all sorts of similar socialist ideas.


Upton Sinclair, Helen Keller, Albert Einstein, Malcolm X, even Martin Luther King late in his life. Even Mark Twain

Not an economist among them.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
At the same time it was indoctrinated into the public school system by progressives.

...I suppress my pain of laughter at your level of paranoia.

I should totally start a thread on which to post the actual propaganda videos that were shown the American youth in their classrooms during the era in question. (I collect them online for amusement.) I think if you actually saw them it would quickly dispel your worries about the ideological nature of the said indoctrination sessions.

[Chris]

...I suppress my pain of laughter at your level of paranoia.

I should totally start a thread on which to post the actual propaganda videos that were shown the American youth in their classrooms during the era in question. (I collect them online for amusement.) I think if you actually saw them it would quickly dispel your worries about the ideological nature of the said indoctrination sessions.

Paranoia, polly, where? Uh, polly, I went to public high school and university. University was especially interesting as the English and Linguistic Depts put on political debates. Basically some elderly linguistics prof taking on a bunch of liberal progressive profs. He would sit there calmly defending his position against their screeches and howls.

The public education system is predominantly liberal progressive unwittingly preaching the Marxist religion of Statism.

[nic34]

Yes, he did, but what's important is the type of taxes. Go back and read.

I was addressing was the phony tax cutting hero Reagan is made out to be when he had to raise taxes, esp. after cutting too much early in his term. Not HOW, not WHEN, not WHY and not WHAT TYPE.

So you and your fellow liby-tarian anarchists can apologize for calling me a liar....

[Chris]

I was addressing was the phony tax cutting hero Reagan is made out to be when he had to raise taxes, esp. after cutting too much early in his term. Not HOW, not WHEN, not WHY and not WHAT TYPE.

So you and your fellow liby-tarian anarchists can apologize for calling me a liar....

No. Nice reduction to name calling again though, nic. :highfive:

[Peter1469]

I was addressing was the phony tax cutting hero Reagan is made out to be when he had to raise taxes, esp. after cutting too much early in his term. Not HOW, not WHEN, not WHY and not WHAT TYPE.

So you and your fellow liby-tarian anarchists can apologize for calling me a liar....

There is no shame in raising taxes a bit to react to a massive economic boom after a massive tax cut. The government tends to maximize tax revenues. To do that, you have to find the sweet spot. To high and tax revenue drops. Too low, and the government misses out on potential tax revenue.

[Mainecoons]

Nic, genius, do you understand that ONLY Congress can raise taxes?

Fact is, Reagan was not of sound mind for much of his second term and he did not stick to his guns, with the help of the liberal Bushes.

Reagan's main contribution was his first term and changing the tone of the discussion. Bush senior manage to undo most of what Reagan accomplished.

No one has faced the reality that the U.S. government is far larger and more expensive than can be afforded. No one.

They will face it when it is no longer possible to print money to avoid facing it. Not until. It doesn't matter one damn bit what the party label is. None of them will face it until the crash comes.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
No. Nice reduction to name calling again though, nic. :highfive:

*sigh* Throwing out unsubstantiated claims that people you disagree with are violating the rules is a tactic you've been employing ever since I met you on these forums. Here are just a couple of the other recent examples:

Here you accused Jillian of trolling my thread on the Zimmerman trial...because she agreed with my position. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/14583-Martin-Convicted-of-Self-Defense-A-Modern-Day-Southern-Lynching?p=326422&viewfull=1#post326422) And when I pointed out who the actual troll might be (before quickly deleting the statement), you responded by claiming that I had personally attacked you -- that I too had violated the rules -- in a transparent attempt to get me banned as well. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/14583-Martin-Convicted-of-Self-Defense-A-Modern-Day-Southern-Lynching?p=326435&viewfull=1#post326435)

Now you're doing this same thing to Nic. He didn't call you any names unless you're now opposed to being described by your self-stated political philosophy.

For someone so opposed to false claims of victimization in life generally, you certainly employ them a lot here. It's a very irritating tactic that you need to get called on. Trying to get all your opponents banned isn't a reasonable approach to debating.

I don't particularly care whether Reagan "raised taxes" this time or that because the net effect of his legacy on tax policy is abundantly clear. I'm bewildered by progressives who would seek to identify with Reagan and to claim his legacy as their own. That, however, is not the point here. The point is that this false-victimization stuff is something you do all the time in order to try and silence anyone who would debate your social views. It suggests a certain knowledge that you can't debate effectively on the merits of your positions.

[Mainecoons]

Uh Polly. . .


So you and your fellow liby-tarian anarchists. .

:rofl:

[Chris]

*sigh* Throwing out unsubstantiated claims that people you disagree with are violating the rules is a tactic you've been employing ever since I met you on these forums. Here are just a couple of the other recent examples:

Here you accused Jillian of trolling my thread on the Zimmerman trial...because she agreed with my position. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/14583-Martin-Convicted-of-Self-Defense-A-Modern-Day-Southern-Lynching?p=326422&viewfull=1#post326422) And when I pointed out who the actual troll might be (before quickly deleting the statement), you responded by claiming that I had personally attacked you -- that I too had violated the rules -- in a transparent attempt to get me banned as well. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/14583-Martin-Convicted-of-Self-Defense-A-Modern-Day-Southern-Lynching?p=326435&viewfull=1#post326435)

Now you're doing this same thing to Nic. He didn't call you any names unless you're now opposed to being described by your self-stated political philosophy.

For someone so opposed to false claims of victimization in life generally, you certainly employ them a lot here. It's a very irritating tactic that you need to get called on. Trying to get all your opponents banned isn't a reasonable approach to debating.

I don't particularly care whether Reagan "raised taxes" this time or that because the net effect of his legacy on tax policy is abundantly clear. I'm bewildered by progressives who would seek to identify with Reagan and to claim his legacy as their own. That, however, is not the point here. The point is that this false-victimization stuff is something you do all the time in order to try and silence anyone who would debate your social views. It suggests a certain knowledge that you can't debate effectively on the merits of your positions.

Sorry, polly, but that's what nic does, name calls. How does that become my problem?

I'm not claiming to be a victim of his name calling and jillian's trolling, I'm merely mocking their irrational, emotional behavior. Why would I feel a victim for what they do to themselves? Why would I feel harmed for their harming themselves? Makes no sense, polly. Seems to me you have projected your feelings onto me.

So much for your ad hom argument. Arguing the messenger doesn't argue the message. You have a bad habit of doing that.

I had already presented a counterargument on Reagan taxes. Maine took up another. Did you miss those? You could have argued those messages.



I'm bewildered by progressives who would seek to identify with Reagan and to claim his legacy as their own.

Polly, they don't identify with Reagan and claim his legacy as their own, they reject it. The irony, the hypocrisy is they accept the same and worse in Obama.

[IMPress Polly]

Mainecoons wrote:
Uh Polly. . .


So you and your fellow liby-tarian anarchists. .





http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/smilies/newsmilies/rofl.gif

Chris has himself claimed to be an anarchist capitalist, so that's an accurate description. Now I guess I suppose one could argue that Nic's term "liby-tarian" could equate to the term "teabagger" for Tea Partiers...but does that seriously count as a "personal" attack now? Do I really need to recount everything far worse and infinitely more personal that I've been called on these forums and opted not to protest or try and get people banned for?

[Chris]

Uh Polly. . .



:rofl:[/I][/COLOR]

Exactly, it's silly name calling on the level of kindergarten kids. Why would I feel victimized, harmed by such political gadfly tactics?

[Chris]

Chris has himself claimed to be an anarchist capitalist. I suppose one could argue that Nic's term "liby" would equate to the term "teabagger" for Tea Partiers...but does that seriously count as a "personal" attack now? Do I really need to recount everything far worse and infinitely more personal that I've been called on these forums and opted not to protest or get anyone banned for?

No, polly, it's the utter silliness of such name calling that I'm pointing out. Just as I've pointed how ridiculous it is for you to make me the topic. It got you so far off track you misunderstood mic's message as well.


If there is any irritation it's that some people don't seem to want to engage in and contribute to discussion but try to tear it down with their name calling and trolling.

[Venus]

Because in America; ALL Americans are Free to make their CHOICE ... just like Conservatives.

Period ... End of Story; Change Came to America in 2009 :grin:


I see hope is no longer included with the mention of change.

[Chris]

Paranoia, polly, where? Uh, polly, I went to public high school and university. University was especially interesting as the English and Linguistic Depts put on political debates. Basically some elderly linguistics prof taking on a bunch of liberal progressive profs. He would sit there calmly defending his position against their screeches and howls.

The public education system is predominantly liberal progressive unwittingly preaching the Marxist religion of Statism.

Getting back to actual discussion, I'd like to clarify something on my point about public education.

Yes, it is true that public education has indoctrinated people against the tyranny of communism and its leaders from Marx to Stalin. They've been demonized, and well they should be.

The problem is that public education has at the same time indoctrinated people into the same socialist ideas that lead inevitably to the evils of tyranny.

[Mainecoons]

I see hope is no longer included with the mention of change.

Not true. We've simply reached the point where more are hoping this change will end ASAP.

:grin:

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
No, polly, it's the utter silliness of such name calling that I'm pointing out. Just as I've pointed how ridiculous it is for you to make me the topic. It got you so far off track you misunderstood mic's message as well.

Alright then, if that level of political correctness is indeed your newfound standard, then the next time anyone so much as refers to me or anyone as a "commie" or a "Democrap" or anything comparable, I'm calling it to the moderators. Up for that?

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
Getting back to actual discussion, I'd like to clarify something on my point about public education.

Yes, it is true that public education has indoctrinated people against the tyranny of communism and its leaders from Marx to Stalin. They've been demonized, and well they should be.

The problem is that public education has at the same time indoctrinated people into the same socialist ideas that lead inevitably to the evils of tyranny.

..."and well they should be", you say? What do you know, we have a self-described "anarchist" who believes in the employment of state ideological indoctrination of children here. Go figure. :laugh::laugh:

In any event, your simplistic equation of all left-leaning thinking to "Marxism" just doesn't bear any resemblance to reality. The balance of college professors may have left-leaning (and overwhelmingly NON-Marxist) personal views, but that doesn't mean that getting a college education means getting a brainwashing in radical left wing ideology like mine. Guess what, I went to public schools and a state university myself and didn't get my Marxian perspective from there. In fact, I hardly learned anything about Marxism at all in school. I had to do my own independent research on the Internet in order to learn much of anything about the subject.

[Venus]

Not true. We've simply reached the point where more are hoping this change will end ASAP.

:grin:



Amen brother

[Chris]

Alright then, if that level of political correctness is indeed your newfound standard, then the next time anyone so much as refers to me or anyone as a "commie" or a "Democrap" or anything comparable, I'm calling it to the moderators. Up for that?

I wasn't asking for moderation, polly. I'm simply pointing out lousy discussion tactics like name calling and trolling. It really doesn't bother me other than it disrupts discussion, as your sidetrack has.

But you should report it if it affects you personally. The mods have asked members to do that.

[Cigar]

Not true. We've simply reached the point where more are hoping this change will end ASAP.

:grin:

3 more years ... then you have Hillary to bitch and complain about ... but the good news is ... she's White and don't need to show her Birth Certificate and College Grades like Black Presidents.

But the bad news is .... She's a Woman :shocked:

[Chris]

..."and well they should be", you say? What do you know, we have a self-described "anarchist" who believes in the employment of state ideological indoctrination of children here. Go figure. :laugh::laugh:

In any event, your simplistic equation of all left-leaning thinking to "Marxism" just doesn't bear any resemblance to reality. The balance of college professors may have left-leaning (and overwhelmingly NON-Marxist) personal views, but that doesn't mean that getting a college education means getting a brainwashing in radical left wing ideology like mine. Guess what, I went to public schools and a state university myself and didn't get my Marxian perspective from there. In fact, I hardly learned anything about Marxism at all in school. I had to do my own independent research on the Internet in order to learn much of anything about the subject.

You're twisting what I said, polly, nice try. Here, let me try that tactic on you: So you are against exposing the evils of tyranny? Why?


In any event, your simplistic equation of all left-leaning thinking to "Marxism" just doesn't bear any resemblance to reality.

Right, but you're the one exaggerating it beyond what I've said, so, yes, your exaggeration bears no resemblance to reality.


The balance of college professors may have left-leaning (and overwhelmingly NON-Marxist) personal views, but that doesn't mean that getting a college education means getting a brainwashing in radical left wing thinking.

Not if you're intelligent enough, thoughtful enough, listen to all opinions, and make up your own mind. I was fortunate to find a linguistic prof who exposed the antics of leftist/Marxist profs.

[Chris]

3 more years ... then you have Hillary to bitch and complain about ... but the good news is ... she's White and don't need to show her Birth Certificate and College Grades like Black Presidents.

But the bad news is .... She's a Woman :shocked:

Polly, what does this contribute to this discussion?

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
I wasn't asking for moderation, polly. I'm simply pointing out lousy discussion tactics like name calling and trolling.

That's a lie because those things are violations of the rules and you know it. You helped craft the current rules. You're being intellectually dishonest in claiming that you had no intention of getting anyone in trouble with those claims when you very casually throw them around.


It really doesn't bother me other than it disrupts discussion, as your sidetrack has.

I do apologize for sidetracking, but I'm trying to get the behavior to change because it's very annoying and it's been a long-time pattern of yours that's been going on since last August at least (when I first joined). I've personally been the target of many of these casual accusations of yours. Hence I want to just have this out once and for all now so it doesn't continue to happen over and over again in the future.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
Polly, what does this contribute to this discussion?

Nothing, but Cigar's behavior (which we've discussed in private) doesn't excuse your own as someone who is in a position of authority on this message board and is hence supposed to set an example. Those of us in positions of authority are called to higher standards of debate.

[Chris]

That's a lie because those things are violations of the rules and you know it. You helped craft the current rules. You're being intellectually dishonest in claiming that you had no intention of getting anyone in trouble with those claims when you very casually throw them around.



I do apologize for sidetracking, but I'm trying to get the behavior to change because it's very annoying and it's been a long-time pattern of yours that's been going on since last August at least (when I first joined). I've personally been the target of many of these casual accusations of yours. Hence I want to just have this out once and for all now so it doesn't continue to happen over and over again in the future.

Stop trying to attack me, polly, you only look silly. What I said is true. If you think those things violations of rules, then you report it.

You want things to change, talk to those who engage in name calling and trolling, polly. Deal with the problem, not the reaction to it.

Yes, if you attack me, I will point it out. Simple as that. Change your behavior then, it's your reputation, not mine.

[Chris]

Nothing, but Cigar's behavior (which we've discussed in private) doesn't excuse your own as someone who is in a position of authority on this message board and is hence supposed to set an example. Those of us in positions of authority are called to higher standards of debate.

What behavior, polly, pointing out name calling and trolling? Deal with the problem, not the reaction to it.

It's interesting that you want me to set an example while you attack me. Hypocritical much?

[Cigar]

Polly, what does this contribute to this discussion?

It contribute the same thing YOU contribute ... a personal belief :wink:

Are we discouraging personal political beliefs now?

Contrary to popular beliefs ... there are no experts on Internet Forums.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
What behavior, polly, pointing out name calling and trolling? Deal with the problem, not the reaction to it.

It's interesting that you want me to set an example while you attack me. Hypocritical much?

You don't "call out" rule violations, you fabricate them! That's the whole point I've been making here. I'm simply calling you on a tasteless debate tactic you routinely employ in the hopes that you might see what I'm saying and reform...but I see that instead the pattern continues. (See your bolded remark.) Look, I'm just sick and tired of you looking for ways to get everyone you disagree with in trouble. The reason I don't report you is because I'm not like that. I don't go out of my way to get people in trouble. You, on the other hand, been trying to get me banned with these sorts of tactics (fabricating violations) ever since I joined.

*throws hands in the air* I'm talking to the wall. Forget it. You're just not going to listen or change ever. Go about your merry way. Have a nice day.

[Chris]

It contribute the same thing YOU contribute ... a personal belief :wink:

Are we discouraging personal political beliefs now?

Contrary to popular beliefs ... there are no experts on Internet Forums.

But it was off topic. Earlier you did in one post address the OP's question.

No, not discouraging anything but name calling and trolling, encouraging discussion.

No, there aren't experts, but there are facts and laws and logic and reason to contribute to discussion, rather than distract from it.

[nic34]

Nothing, but Cigar's behavior (which we've discussed in private) doesn't excuse your own as someone who is in a position of authority on this message board and is hence supposed to set an example. Those of us in positions of authority are called to higher standards of debate.

polly, it's not that I am adverse to discussion, but I have seen little acceptance for equal participation. I'm not here to just throw bombs or apply "names", and everyone should know I don't normally do that. But lately the constant dismissive, obnoxiously pious, and sanctimonious, I'm the authority here I will have the last word attitude is really petty and annoying. No doubt you've seen those forums where the children have taken over? It's getting like that.

chris doesn't normally name call or mock and reject sources, his little following of mindless gnomes do a good job of that for him. But the minute jillian, junie, marie or I take an opposing view it's marxist this and communist that, your source sucks, and so on.

Now they wonder why they are reaping what they have sown.

[Chris]

polly, it's not that I am adverse to discussion, but I have seen little acceptance for equal participation. I'm not here to just throw bombs or apply "names", and everyone should know I don't normally do that. But lately the constant dismissive, obnoxiously pious, and sanctimonious, I'm the authority here I will have the last word attitude is really petty and annoying. No doubt you've seen those forums where the children have taken over? It's getting like that.

chris doesn't normally name call or mock and reject sources, his little following of mindless gnomes do a good job of that for him. But the minute jillian, junie, marie or I take an opposing view it's marxist this and communist that, your source sucks, and so on.

Now they wonder why they are reaping what they have sown.

Thanks, I guess, nic. No, I don't do those things, I only point them out.

I don't have a following. And don't want one.

This is something I think about now and then. I don't think there's any in this supposed "his little following" that I haven't argued with over politics, religion, you name it, and I see them arguing with each other. Stands to reason, we're all different people with different views that you saying "his little following" lump together. But here's the kicker, I never see you all on the left arguing with each other. Surely you all are as well different people with different views. Aren't you?




Now they wonder why they are reaping what they have sown.

What, being called names? Being flame baited by jillian?

[Chris]

...Yeah, now would be a good time to shut up and quit obliterating the defense I've spent multiple pages offering you. You've basically just admitted that you're willfully contributing to the problem rather than opting to be part of the solution and that you have no intention of reforming in that connection.

One can pass the blame for their actions or own up to them. One can be part of the problem or part of the solution to whatever hostility one senses in the atmosphere. You have choices. Frustration I understand. Making a policy out of it I don't.

Why don't you reflect on that yourself, polly?

[IMPress Polly]

...I...think I'd better just stop replying on this thread before I get too angry to use sound judgment.

[KC]

Closing thread until further notice.