Terrific piece. But Fox deserves more than one mention. The fascist base does not read the newspapers and watch CNN. They watch Fox, sometimes with the TV on all day in their living rooms. This usage is directed at the neoliberal base, if such a term can be used, so they have something to go to when they’re taking a break from Maddow-Russiagate Mania.
No mention of Manchin and Lipinski?
Hell, for that matter, no mention of Beto-and-switch O’Rourke?
To begin with, let’s applaud McCleod’s acknowledgement that part of the Democratic Party is right-wing and not “centrist.” That’s important, though the language has been bent around so much. Usage of terms like left, liberal, conservative, and so forth has distorted almost past utility.
For several centuries, these terms carried reference not to affiliation, but to ideology, albeit with the usual variances in understanding. Attempts to polemicize certain associations between ideas has bent things around so that one cannot use the words or understand them with confidence.
The terms originally came from the French Revolution. The left were against the king; the right were for the king. Left came to refer to adherence to ideologies of liberty, equality, fraternity, human rights, solidarity across social divides, and economic equality. Right wing meant adherence to authority, hierarchy, coercion, and exclusion. As a good example of usage that many find counterintuitive, one might check out VI Lenin’s excoriation of Kautsky in Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile DIsorder. Kautsky disagreed with Lenin’s authoritarianism, so Lenin appropriately recognized him as a left-wing as opposed to right-wing communist.
The word has historically gotten distorted particularly within the United States because of the tendency of Americans to conflate property and property rights with liberty, as though the world were somehow freer because Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos don’t pay taxes or as though political bribes contributed to balance of power.
Of course, there is no point using a word in a way that has been correct if many people no longer understand it. But there is also no point in a usage that has become incoherent–that is bandied about as though it were at once a term of affiliation and a term of ideology, as though the ideology were affirmed will he nill he by affiliation and nothing else.
But it is important to recognize that one organization can have two left or two right wings. The prime relevant example here is the US government, with two “major” political parties dedicated to authority, hierarchy, coercion, and exclusion.
So, who on Earth is the “left wing politician” in the Republican Party?
Left and Right are in relation to the entire political spectrum, not just within the party
It’s undeniably true that Ocasio-Cortez et alia aren’t on the “far left”.
My question is why, if that’s defined as a sincere and unwavering commitment to the realization of a life of dignity for every single person on this planet, would anyone be afraid to be labeled as such?
In fact, the phrase “right-wing Democrat” has not appeared in the New York Times for over 30 years
Can something like that happen by accident? Almost sounds like a conspiracy - don’t it?
If you were manufacturing a right wing Duopoly…well…
There is a lot to be torn down and anti trust law being enforced, FCC needs to rules for radio/TV/print and cabel just basically broken up. All executive orders by Trump a review and rewrite the laws of executive orders. Obviously, checks and balances in our systems don’t work under a fascist dictator like Trump. We need to prevents the lawbreakers.
We need to outlaw false advertising, enforce laws or recreate laws for lying to the public, corruption should be easier to prove? This is in our face corruption. Or maybe we just need to start enforcing laws on books for corruption. Did we legalize everything for a profit?
Our current system is so broken and blame belongs squarely on the republicans with some corporate dems help.
Most of all corporate media is bias for themselves and friends. CNN and MSNBC are part of problem but yes Fox beats them all
Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege.
The inescapable fact is that when we build a society based on greed, selfishness, and ruthless competition, the fruits we can expect to reap are economic insecurity at home and international discord abroad
There isn’t a left wing in the Democrat Party. There is the far right of the party and a few centrists. The centrists supporting issues that the center of the country support - Medicare for All, Free College, The Green New Deal - which is a jobs deal, 15$ an hour. All those issues are centrist. There is certainly no “radical” left in the party. No one I’ve heard of is calling for the end of capitalism and there have been only a few whispers pertaining to imperialism.
This article presupposes that the Republicans are not socialists. So what do you call the Chrysler bailout and the recent Trump tax law giving advantages to corporations and the upper 1%? Nice try, but the hypocrisy is obvious.
No version of Socialism I know of is about shifting a nations wealth from the masses to the 1 percent. That is what we refer to as Capitalism.
Not if you are only talking about one party.
So is the hypocrisy of 'free market" ideologues using corporate bailouts.The Republicans like socialism for the rich and Ayn Rand for the poor. They would never call it socialism. SuspiraDeProfundis sees the main problem with your premise. quite well. Maybe she doesn’t understand about corporations being people like you do.
I forget who said it , I thought it was Gore Vidal or, maybe Upton Sinclair, described the US duopoly system as a “bird of prey with two right wings: the Democracts and Republicans.”
I think that we ought to reclaim the political term left - a term of the revolutionary working class. The Dems are not on the left. Argueably, the Democrats could have been called “centrist” during the New Deal period, but not before and not after.
With different outlooks from within one party, we should be able to see what breaking that up into multiple party’s would be like. Three or four party’s reflecting left-wing viewpoints etc.
That sounds good to me,Tom.