Are you a socialist?
My view is that right-wingers have been on the wrong side of history almost every time. I don't know if you are old enough to remember Franco, next door to Portugal, but that is a pretty good example of what right-wing power in the 20th century looked like - no free press, no right to privacy, an official government religion, etc. During the 20th century, right-wingers opposed civil rights in almost every manifestation - supporting apartheid in S. Africa and segregation in the US, oppressing anyone not rich and Catholic in Latin America, etc. etc. They opposed interracial marriage and integrated schools, and they opposed the rights of gays to marry, or even to participate in consensual sex in private (see Bowers. v. Hardwick, 1986, US Supreme Court). Further, it is the right who imposes their religious views on society. You don't see Lutherans out there causing trouble.
They are also wrong on economics: trickle-down economics turns out to be completely wrong, and they have been instrumental is eliminating the power of unions, thereby reducing the economic and political power of the working class. Economic inequality has risen under Republicans, as they cut tax rates on the higher brackets, and on investment income. Finally, they are big on debt - the US debt always rises under Republicans (to pay big corporations for military contracts), but falls under Democrats. And, since I am a hinter and fisher, I oppose almost every environmental policy of the Republicans, who are happy to sell off my grandchildren's public lands heritage for short-term profits.
Other than gun rights, I don't see what they are correct on.
The purpose of that was so I could better respond to and coin arguments that you'd be more likely to respond to. You see, I am an ex-Socialist. I was a Maoist.
When I use the word socialism, it's referring to two things: Marxist-Leninism, and Bolivaran Socialism. Both pertain in large part to property rights.
Onto what you said.
Ok, so a few things off the bat. I am not a Republican. I don't participate in American politics. So please don't project or misrepresent what values I hold or I believe in. Because like you, I don't 100% line up with the Republican party.
But as for the wrong side of history, you appear to be cherrypicking. I'll get to that, but firstly let me respond to your critique of Francisco Franco and Falangism, which is the ideology he coined:
Franco wrested control of Spain from anarchist and communist forces. During their rule of parts of Spain, the country was in chaos. His regime sought to restore order and solidify Spain against foreign invasions. I'll be honest, there's things I agree with Franco on, and things I disagree with. Chiefly, he was antisemitic to some degree and racist. Early Falangism referred to the Iberians as a superior race to the rest of Europe through our partial Arab descent, and that's... well just so freaking ridiculous. But the alternative would have been a Marxist-Leninist Spain that would have been worse. So while I don't support early Franco Spain, I don't necessarily condemn it considering the circumstances it developed under.
Post-WWII, Spain modernized, he adopted a free market and began to process of restoring some civil liberties. Whether or not that's sufficient to you is in the eyes of the beholder, but he's dead, and Spain has long since become a constitutional monarchy and a "free" country by any sufficient measure. Personally, I think you're cherrypicking.
Firstly, remember the Democratic party approved of both the Soviet Union and National Socialism during the 30s. They were the party of segregation, anti-semitism, and the founders of the KKK's two first incarnations. Even FDR was a segregationist, and he didn't invite Jesse Owens to the White House because he was Black. Are you telling me the Democratic party prior to the 1970s was on the right? Does that accurately reflect your argument? Secondly, look at the voting for and against segregation in the 1960s. The Republican party was the champion of the Civil Rights movement in the 1970s. Also, before you bring up Southern Strategy, remember that both Carter and Clinton won much of the South in their campaigns.
Oppressing anyone not rich and Catholic in Latin America? Have you seen or read anything on pre-Communist Cuba or pre-Socialist Venezuela? The countries were VASTLY better then compared to what they are now. Cuba has famines and food shortages regularly, Castro put gay people in sanitariums because he saw them as AIDS vectors. The Venezuelan goverment has committed massive human rights atrocities, and every "Democratic Socialist" in the US during its prosperity years was praising it, all the while Chavez committed massive human rights atrocities.
Opposed integration? Interracial Marriage? The only prominent "Dixiecrat" that switched sides was Strom Thurmond. You really need to re-read history. The Democratic party wasn't always pro-integration.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is a fair point, however. That is because the right's religion of choice is always conservative Christianity, namely Evangelical Protestantism. Catholicism tends to be more 50/50. I'm not a Christian, however, but I can tell you that from the opinion of Christians, marriage is an institution that is both provided by the Church and the State. The issue always was that the left's advocacy for same sex marriage didn't necessarily separate the church from the state in this regard. From their POV, this was a moral issue. But hey, there's gay conservatives and such.
As for the right to be the only one to impose their moral views on society, this is a lie. Liberation theology and other liberal Christian institutions are strong in the US and impose the same advocacy. You don't hear about it due to political bias.
As for Lutherans, I'll say this. Liberal Christianity is loose on its institutions, morals and membership. Almost every Liberal Christian has their own moral philosophy they will impose on others, but those who don't, can't really call them Christian since Liberal Christianity is so loose compared to the doctrine. As a non-Christian, I abhor liberal Christianity the same as the evangelicals. I tend to be fine with Catholics, on the other hand.
Supply-side economic policies have their flaws, but the alternative of Keynesian economics, especially those practiced by the Clinton and Obama administrations appear to have been ineffectual in the grand scheme. The unemployment rates during Obama's term stagnated, prices for necessities like fuel remained high, and people suffered. Printing money or borrowing uncontrollably just doesn't work. I'm not opposed to systems that do work - Norway has negative debt, and the people are generally happy, but it's not socialist. It's a capitalist welfare state. Now do I want to pay that much in taxes to live? Personally, no I don't. Welfare states work if they can afford their social programs, and in the case of much of Northern Europe, they have industries that are very lucrative and they are producers, not consumers. It's not possible to just apply what worked in Norway to the US and observe the same effects.
Unions are corrupt, and morally I oppose them as they're setup in the US because: they are mandatory to join, they have mandatory dues, and they represent everyone. I am against coercion, so I will never work in a union-controlled industry again. I will never be part of a union. I've LOST jobs because the union caused strikes and while I wanted to work, they made it so I couldn't work. They made it so I funded their fatasses while they picketed for higher wages while I was fine with what I had. Unions in the US are mafia led extortionists, so I support union dissolution in the US. Historical unions served a great purpose. Modern day ones sink companies like Hostess or Dupont-Fabros.
Debt has always risen under Democrats since the 2000s, to be fair. They played their part as well. The last time we had a budget surplus was over 20 years ago, and that was with a Republican controlled Congress to boot. It NEVER fell under Obama, and it won't fall under Biden.
As far as environmentalism goes, that's another topic, and far off the topic of the thread. But I'll say I only support environmental policies that don't make it more expensive for normal working class, like myself, to live. Raising fuel prices to $3/gallon+ will inevitably devastate my ability to make money, and that's a double-whammy over the Wuhan Virus. And before you say "get a more efficient car" I don't want a new car. I like my 16-year old station wagon. It's cheaper to operate, and I'm a safer driver with that than with the new ESC and traction control systems which have caused me to have car wrecks. Environmental policies that raise power costs, or take away my right to drive where I want or raise my insurance or whatever are ineffectual and will just cause protests. You think you've seen it bad during the pandemic? Oppress people economically, and we'll bite back hard. Environmentalism has its share of scams and frauds.
Also, one last thing. The Great Leap Forward killed 60 million people. Stalin committed a genocide that most of the world ignores (Holodomor), China is committing another genocide right now. You're going to sit there and tell me leftists don't have sins?
HOLY COW! Someone who has read history AND economics! I hardly know what to say!
Anyway - to your points - I am not really willing to grant Franco too much. Yes, the country was, electorally, a mess, but no matter how you cut it, he used the military to overthrow the democratically-elected government (weak and divided though it was). He allied himself with the Nazis and, once he won, he instituted a classical fascist government. And he was ruthless.
With regard to Latin America, I am certainly not advocating Cuban-style Communism. But the US participated in quite a few 'banana wars' to keep big businesses and kleptocrats in power over the peasant-class in places like Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, etc. There are ways to do land-reform that doesn't involve a Communist takeover, but because large, right-wing financial interests in those countries had a lot to lose, they blocked intermediate reform, which in some cases, let to revolutions. If you keep repressing people, don't be surprised when they explode. The Soviet Union took advantage of this, but if you were a peasant who had been kept under the thumb for 100 years, you might take any opportunity to overthrow the rich, corrupt class.
You may oppose unions, but it is an economic fact that, without unions, there would be no OSHA regulations protecting workers, no 8-hour work day, no child-labor laws, no minimum wage, etc., etc. A large corporation has so much more power than any individual worker, that there is no way for workers to stand up for their rights. A look at the history of labor in the US, with workers dying in mines, or getting injured on production lines, shows that the corporations never accommodated what, today, we would call fairly reasonable workers' protections. I do agree that they became corrupt, but I would argue that the corporations, who regularly cooperated on things like wage-fixing, were equally corrupt.
This is one of the great tragedies of American manufacturing. In the US, there has historically been a completely antagonistic relationship between labor and capital, whereas in Japan, no such antagonism ever existed. They took care of their workers, and there was never a need for unions. But, for America, this antagonism ensured that, for example, the cars produced by American manufacturing were of lower quality than the Japanese cars. In Japan every worker is part of an integrated machine, but in the US, the workers are so worried about not being exploited that they prioritize their own work conditions, and their overtime, over the product produced. GM tried to capture the Japanese work ethic with the NUUMI plant, but it couldn't be maintained because GM was so focused on short-term profits. So, you may blame the unions, but I would argue that the unions were a completely predictable response to the general exploitation of the working class during the late 19th/early 20th century.
With regard to the debt - my interpretation of the data is that the Democrats rely less on the debt (data: US Treasury):
View attachment 1283
Other than the spikes for the 2008 crisis and Coronavirus, the US debt rises under Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 and does not under Clinton and only mildly under Obama (once the 2008 crisis was stabilized).
And overall real wages are pretty good under Democrats:
View attachment 1284
I dropped a reality bombshell that's proving itself - Trumpism won't end with the ousting of Trump. If they don't get some form of representation and what they want, then things will only escalate.
I'm just the donkey with a cynical eye. Call me Benjamin.
A handful of states already attempted secession and it didn't go well. Not only did it not go well for the people of those states, but it didn't go well for the rest of the country either.
There's absolutely nothing that will convince me that 1) an attempted secession would NOT have the same outcome and 2) Anyone thinking this would be a good idea can see beyond their nose.
Do a little research on civil wars throughout history. There are certain things they all have in common (including our very own American Civil War) Things like access to safe drinking water, food, and healthcare are among the first to disappear. This is why in many civil wars, civilian deaths far outpace those of the belligerents.
Foreign intervention is a given. No ally of the U.S. will sit idly by while the U.S. implodes. Their own security is too dependent on stability here, both economically and militarily.
An insurgency would possibly be supported by the likes of Russia/China/NK/Iran as those countries would love to see the U.S. fail. Would the insurgents really believe that aligning with those countries is going to solve the problems they have with their own government? It kind of reminds me of the story about the dog chasing the car, with no idea what he's going to do if he catches it.
Personally, I'm not willing to write off people I love because other people didn't get their way. Anyone who proposes making that decision for me is MY enemy irregardless of their politics.
For one, understanding that we have a bunch of squeaky wheels on both sides causing the most noise. I'm not convinced that the majority of Americans are far to the left or right. I am convinced we have a bunch of perpetually offended crybabies on both sides who feel like they should get everything they want exactly how they want it. Whether they want things changed, left alone, or reverted back to the "good ole days", if it's not their way it's no good and they throw a tantrum.what do you suggest is the best alternative?
I won't pretend that I LIKE Roscoe. I don't, and I anticipate the sentiment with him is similar towards me. We are mostly opposites with entirely different generational backgrounds and viewpoints. I'm hesitant to "defer to an elder" when as I stated the 60s and 70s counterculture was as bad, immature and freaky as modern counterculture people are.I just wanted to say Thank you to Roscoe and M5-Shogun for a good discussion. I appreciate the civil and cordial tone as well as the references and facts both presented to support their views and opinions.
For one, understanding that we have a bunch of squeaky wheels on both sides causing the most noise. I'm not convinced that the majority of Americans are far to the left or right. I am convinced we have a bunch of perpetually offended crybabies on both sides who feel like they should get everything they want exactly how they want it. Whether they want things changed, left alone, or reverted back to the "good ole days", if it's not their way it's no good and they throw a tantrum.
Secondly, understanding what's at stake if this American experiment is abandoned. I'm not in the mood for having checkpoints with armed sentries at the end of my road, checking to see what I bought at the grocery store before they decide whether I can go home or not. I enjoy being able to communicate with people I care about, to visit friends out of state without having to worry if the local militia/freedom fighters are reasonable people. It wouldn't be a peaceful dissolution where lines are drawn and everyone parts amicably. It would be a very messy, ugly, painful divorce.
People die every day trying to get into this country. Right now, people aren't dying trying to get out. I'd prefer to keep it that way.
We made the decision to homeschool the kid prior to last school year for multiple reasons, but this is the primary.our children are still being indoctrinated and told how to think
BLM or Antifa or Proud Boys or 3 Percenters or women wearing vagina hats...none of that matters. They're not paying my bills or signing my check. I don't owe them money or anything else for that matter, so I don't feel an obligation to listen or abide by what they say.Antifa isn't going to go away because the Orange Man has left the White House. BLM will continue to sow racial divisions
I understand why your family fled the situation they were in. My descendents also fled persecution (Religious, not political. But religion was the politics of the times) although it was quite farther back in history and they came to the "New World" instead of the U.S. I don't think what this country is going through currently is unique to us and because of that, can't think of another country I'd consider leaving for.there are times I wish my family would have fled anywhere else. But at the end of the day, I am here, I can't do anything about it, and honestly, compared to how most of Europe and Asia are right now, I wouldn't want to be anywhere else
Too easy. Majorities no longer matter. The few with the loudest voices decide everything for everyone nowadays.Does anyone happen to know if there is even a single State where the majority of residents want to secceed from the Union? Seems kinda difficult to split up the USA if no State is willing to do that. Or is someone suggesting an armed minority forcing a civilian majority into it?
Does anyone happen to know if there is even a single State where the majority of residents want to secceed from the Union? Seems kinda difficult to split up the USA if no State is willing to do that. Or is someone suggesting an armed minority forcing a civilian majority into it?
The cities will be overrun eventually. They may hold out for a few months to a year or more, but notice a few things:Too easy. Majorities no longer matter. The few with the loudest voices decide everything for everyone nowadays.
States secede from the union, cities secede from the states. Map resembles a dalmatian and cell phones cease to exist because there just aren't enough area codes for all these different countries.
I don't think any elected officials are interested in breaking up the union. So is a minority going to elect one who is? I think you've missed my point. Which is that although there may be a fair few people interested in making smaller counties from the US to try and preserve/regain/create a version of society they find preferable to how things presently stand, I think they're far too spread out to get it done.Whomever's in power will decide for everyone else. Best case, we get some kind of "population exchange" going on where people can trade properties of similar values for those who wanna leave. Worst case we have a brutal purge and cleansing - not something I'm looking forward to, but a real threat.
What we need to do is stay calm, anticipate that third parties will register and post seditious material to justify shutting this site down, and REPORT THEM IMMEDIATELY.
Again, I know it feels like the Republic is lost. It may be. But for now, on this site, please for the love of God stay calm, speak rationally, and hope for .... better judgement from our leaders in the future.
The coming days and weeks (likely after the 20th) will be easier, but for now we need to be on the best possible behavior. Please. :)