Left Blog

Today’s left ideology made here.

Civil war looming within the Democratic party?

      Lefties joined hands to see Obama through the elections.


      After the inauguration, when the champagne glasses were tossed, and when the circle of hands dropped, we stood back in the winter weather. Looked at each other, and took breath.


     Ready? The Democratic party has lost its soul.


     That’s right. The party that was once known for its activists who organized street vigils, tore up the night for social justice, yelled their questions at authorities, electrified courtrooms and ran boycotts to champion the underdog, no longer exists.

     What happened?


     A good portion of the active left has grown comfortable. They still wear blue jeans; but they’re established. Now they collect rents. They arrive at street demonstrations in glossy cars. They pull out $400 digital cameras at street events.


     Another talented portion is now playing with very big wealth. It’s true, some of the big money is Republicans who have switched parties, embarrassed. But the fact is that behind those penthouse windows, some of the richest people in America are Democrats.

     Beautiful people. You can find them in the plate glass Beverly Hills shops. They inhabit the mirror. Weekdays, they game the hedge funds. But, as Joel Kotkin says in a frigid article, these people don’t keep contact with the rest of us. The only contact they have with have-nots is their nannies and parking valets.


    What’s the point? Our basic liberal values, from John Rawls’s Theory of Justice, go like this: The goodness of any society is not measured by how wealthy the best-off are, but how well the lowest member is doing. In a well-ordered society rank is unavoidable, but it is wrong that some should have less in order that others may prosper. Liberty is vital, but justice is the highest virtue.


     The Democratic party has just woken up with a nasty twist in its neck.


     Painful contradictions, because these rich members are the ones now creating these vast inequalities that derail equal treatment. Within the Democratic party, the division between the haves and the have-nots is now fierce. Worse than anything in modern Europe.


     And the new, manicured left is not interested in social justice any more.  They’re disinclined to pay taxes for public goods (clinics, transport, schools) because they don’t use public goods. They call themselves Democrats, but they never talk about moral principles transcending the material, which is a leftist basic. They don’t say it, but it’s on their faces: ‘in property we trust.’


    I’ve listened to progressives. Some hope the current free market explosion is reaching the end of the pendulum, and will begin to swing back. Unlikely. It’s precisely these Democrats with exponential money that have the momentum for the continued outward swing. (Complete with their contradictions. War and  environmentalism? – they grin and give the thumbs up. )


     These ultra-rich Democrats are the reason I’m predicting capitalism is just getting started on its second Big Bang.


    Moral principle,  shoved aside for materialism.


    Listen. I’ve tried personally to get this haves vs. have-nots topic talking. It never works. And I’ve listened to left wing talk radio trying to get this topic onto the morning airwaves. It never catches on.


     Nobody will talk about haves and have-nots. These starkly unequal days it could be in every conversation, but utter silence. Why – is it guilt? Is it self-consciousness? Not really.


     The fact is, among liberals, the basic moral values are gone. Property is back at center. So if we did talk haves vs. have-nots, eventually we’d  have to admit it: Nothing has changed since Medieval times.


     And something I’ve been reading, it’s about a new trend. These days the wealthy are retreating into walled communities – in such numbers a book has been written about it. Behind those big gates, the wealthy are “forting up.” It appears they want walls and guards between themselves and the poor.


     This is not civic behavior.


     Throughout history, walls have been thrown up when you’re expecting trouble. The Great Wall of China. Barricaded Army forts. In ancient European times, the feudal lord built stone walls against barbarians. And when trouble came, in ancient times, the lord of the castle would gather his people inside for protection.


    Are our very wealthy expecting something?


    And there’s a difference. In case of social unrest, I don’t think today’s rich will invite the rest of us in. 











  1. “Animal Farm” syndrome,period……

    Comment by bearbender | August 4, 2008 | Reply

  2. I am a Canadian but that does not stop me from having a profound interest in American politics, nor should it. So goes America, so goes Canada.
    So having said that I will say that I checked equality on your poll question “Which is most important in a society?”. Many chose freedom. However, there is no freedom in a society that does not intrinsically encompass equality.

    The underlying question that Americans need to put on the table and address is to define equality in terms of achievable outcomes. Some people will be richer. They are fortunate in business, they work harder, they were blessed with above average intelligence, they came from supportive homes, the list goes on. I have no difficulty with difference in personal wealth. I cherish my family happiness more than any amount of money. Equality just starts me off on a level playing field. The United States (and to a lesser degree, Canada) does not do that. Our First Nations Canadians are not on such a field. Your citizens of African ancestry have two strikes against them before they are born.
    However, America is a very powerful nation that is to a large degree despised by many in the world. The sharing of wealth must be global. Equality within and without will be required for your great nation to survive.

    Comment by David | August 4, 2008 | Reply

  3. Sounds noble, David. Let it begin with you, sharing your wealth. Then we will follow. We don’t need a government madate to do this. Thanks, John

    Comment by John | August 7, 2008 | Reply

  4. Faulty logic, poor reasoning, and sad sad pining away for the old days (and they’re the old days for a good reason, but I won’t get into that here) — but!! terrifically! written!

    You’re a wonderful writer — if only, oh if only you were a Libertarian . . . :) I like your blog and writing so much I’m going to include it in my blogroll.

    Keep up the great work and writing. If radical liberalism ever starts gaining traction again in the collective consciousness (God Help Us!!!), it’ll be writing like this that will vanguard the way, and that just motivates me to improve my own writing!

    – Cheers,
    The Charters Of Dreams

    Comment by The Charters Of Dreams | August 9, 2008 | Reply

  5. Looks like most of your commenters disagree. Could it be that your arguments are formed from relative logic in which there is never any real truth? Most of what I am reading on your blog is critical in nature and offers little proactive ideas to solve real problems. The thinking person’s only logical conclusion would be that you are an unapologetic Marxist. If not, I would like to see you post a blog refuting the tenets of “The Communist Manufesto”.

    Finally I would like to leave you with mu favorite quote of all time:

    “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly…Who knows the great enthusiams, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who have never known neither victory nor defeat.”
    – Teddy Roosevelt

    Comment by Peter S | August 12, 2008 | Reply

  6. Hilarious post. I love your straw men arguments! You burn them down with such finesse.

    Those who control the terms of debate, control the outcome!

    Good luck and keep collecting those paychecks from your secret funders!

    Comment by Weird Scenes | August 16, 2008 | Reply

  7. i disagree with you, i defected from the democratic party because it no longer espouses democratic ideals. the party leaders sold out to special interest groups and no longer work towards liberal, progressive and humane policies for the citizens of the united states to improve the total economic welfare of all.

    example-hiliary clinton was on the board of wallmart
    did she every stand up for the employees? and if she did why isn’t there any press to substantiate that,

    Comment by trish | August 21, 2008 | Reply

  8. To David re your comments about “equality in terms of achievable outcomes.” As an outsider maybe you have better insight into our situation.

    Our constitution enshrines equal opportunity, not equal results. How should we seek to modify our constitution to guarantee equal results, or should we just disregard our constitution like you Canadians always do?

    Comment by CA Progressive | September 6, 2008 | Reply

  9. I think you have a valid point about the disappearance of the idea of the “common good” from our public discourse.

    Nobody cares.

    The Republicans don’t even understand what that means, because they hate FDR and the New Deal, with all the social safety nets it provided. The Democrats are scared to bring it up because they’re afraid they will look anti-business and pro-taxes. They have become wimps for the simple reason that the Republicans are bullies and have controlled the terms of the debate for the last 30 years. I mean, the term “liberal” has gotten a negative connotation now because of them. It’s as if liberal is something bad. They’ve succeeded at that because the Democrats have allowed them to step all over their ideals. It’s pathetic.

    I do think, however, there is more hope than you seem to believe there is. Definitely we are going in the direction of capitalist darwinism but maybe there will be more of a balance created if someone like Obama wins and can take us back to FDR type of policies for the common good. The sure way to lose is to lose faith.

    Comment by Jane | September 7, 2008 | Reply

  10. What’s happening with the Democratic Party is that it’s reverting to what it used to be before FDR: the party of the plantation. True, there are some differences–the hard, tribal racism of Andrew Jackson has been replaced with the soft, condescending racism of Jesse Jackson.

    A real giveaway as to what the Democratic Party is really about centers on gun prohibition. The vast majority of Americans who own guns are responsible and conscientious with their tools–and way more people die of prescription drugs each year than bullet wounds–yet there are many among the Democratic elite who seek a blanket criminalization of gun ownership–an authoritarian and startlingly similar policy to the “war on drugs” and attempts of the elites in the Jim Crow South to disarm black people. Despite their munificent claims, “gun control” has never improved public safety anywhere, rather it helps black marketeering, fills prisons and makes it easier for violent offenders to prey on law-abiding citizens. Opposition to “gun control” is one of the few issues the Republicans get right, and it touches a nerve with common people who’ve proven themselves more trustworthy with dangerous tools than many of our government and corporate functionaries.

    Disarming the citizenry further stratifies society, ceding an exclusive monopoly on force to the state and the corporation–elements the “left” routinely protests. The “left” loves to bring up the nonviolence of Martin Luther King, yet they conveniently forget that MLK’s freedom riders would have been toast in the ’60s without the Deacons for Justice and Rob Williams’ NRA chapter, among others, protecting them. Lord knows the racist lawmen weren’t going to prevent attacks by the Klan.

    The Dem elites’ insistence on attempting to disarm the citizenry has cost them elections and certainly diminished their credibility when it comes to rights and equality. They claim to support “a woman’s right to choose”, yet would deny her the right to choose a .45 for personal protection in her home. These elites, themselves, have their persons and assets protected by people with guns, yet they don’t want those same people to be able to protect themselves and their families in the same fashion. They vilify lawful gun owners and the NRA in particular for the murderous actions of lawless thugs–and then wonder why they don’t get any respect from the “right”. I, myself, had never considered joining the NRA, until some Democrats in SF, where I live, tried to impose an authoritarian gun ban in the City, attempting to justify it through the headline-grabbing actions of gangsters and psychos, which I’m neither. For over 20 years I voted mostly Democratic, but this year, I wound up registering Republican to vote for Ron Paul.

    When it comes to the issue of guns and personal protection, those who call themselves “liberal” ought to be mindful of Machiavelli’s words: “When you disarm them, you begin to offend them: you show that you distrust them either for cowardice or for lack of faith, both of which opinions generate hatred against you.”

    Comment by CEH | September 8, 2008 | Reply

    • you ronge ande a boofin .. looser

      Comment by Dan | November 9, 2011 | Reply

  11. This is just plain wrong:

    “The party that was once known for its activists who organized street vigils, tore up the night for social justice, yelled their questions at authorities, electrified courtrooms and ran boycotts to champion the underdog, no longer exists”

    Well, it’s right if you are referring to the Yippies, but NOT the Democrats. When the street vigils and riots were happening, the Democrats we exemplified by the likes of Hubert Humphrey, Richard J. Daley and George Wallace. William Kunstler was not a Democrat. Nor were Abbey Hoffman, Bobby Seale, Huey Newton or any other loud voices of protest.

    The Democrats have always been feeding at the public trough just like the Republicans. It’s the true revolutionaries who have disappeared.

    – Bruce

    Footnote: Geeze, why is it the gun nuts crop up at every corner with their demented paranioa. If anyone should be prevented from having a gun, it’s these folks. That said, always remeber that if guns are outlawed only policemen will have guns…

    Comment by Bruce Ishikawa | September 11, 2008 | Reply

  12. Hey, Bruce: Why would you want the people you routinely protest to be the only ones to legally handle guns? And if you’re such a “true revolutionary” or lover of true revolutionaries, why would you want to deny yourself the right to a gun? And do you really think that gangbangers will give up their hardware if prohibition is enacted, so that “only policemen will have guns”? Maybe in a Stalinist police state, that’s possible–but then you have to contend with a Stalinist police state. Would you find that preferable to a free society? What fantasy world do you live in, anyway? It’s sheeple like you, along with the robbery crews, who make gun owners paranoid. Incidentally, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale were “gun nuts”, too. They believed in exercising all their rights–why don’t you?

    Comment by CEH | September 12, 2008 | Reply

  13. As was said above, the Democratic Party is not the party of the Left. It was the party that glorified slavery, called for military force against civilians trying to survive during hurricane katrina and was as hostile to the New Left as the Republicans (if not more so). It’s the party of big business and was behind ending the new deal, much more so than the republicans.

    It sounds like you’d be happier if you sought out an actual Leftist party, like the SWP, SP, NUP…

    Comment by Tj | September 14, 2008 | Reply

  14. Hello
    Nice site!


    Comment by Biorieprado | October 1, 2008 | Reply

  15. I just want to take some money! :)
    Press here

    Comment by EnabyBono | October 2, 2008 | Reply

  16. You are totally and completely wrong. The Democratic Party was never a party of the Left, but rather always a party of trenchant capitalism and corporate power. Before you start writing a blog spouting “left ideology,” figure out the basics of what being a leftist means.

    Comment by Loren | October 6, 2008 | Reply

  17. Civil War? Really? Maybe this drama will just drag on indefinitely, in its endlessly ineffective lazy way, until the last mortgage is foreclosed and America is faced with the dissatisfying reality that the party is pretty much over. I’m sure that’ll end with a real bang. People who are increasingly dissatisfied with how we do things could rise up in grass roots activism that has substance; it could happen; but that has little to do with whether the Democratic Party shifts it’s polarity once more. Change will come; that is inevitable, but it isn’t going to be because we blog our way to revolution. Change will come because the pain gets too searing to ignore. When all the hipsters and intellectuals get pushed aside by pissed off ordinary people who finally realize that safety and endless lines of credit are opiates that they can no longer escape into; that fix just doesn’t do it for them anymnore. They’ll be like a bunch of angry crystal junkies who just stole the last cent out of their kids wallet and it won’t pay for a dime bag. That scene could get pretty ugly, and it doesn’t even pan over to the rest of the world waiting quietly for the shoe to drop while the ice caps melt faster and faster. Man it’s gettin hot in here.

    I think Obama is a whole lot better than what we’ve gotten used to seeing, but he’s playing a flute; he’s the pied piper. Americans are sick of the same ole, for sure; but as soon as the novelty wears off and we get sick of hearing him picolo pretty tunes and realize he’s actually calling on us to make the kind of real sacrifices that we can feel?… we’ll be back to business as usual. Maybe he can move us in a better direction, and maybe folks will “get it” and America will find a way to fill our gas tanks for another 100 years, or so; but the change we need? Can he break the association between our way of life and our selfish standard of living? Can we look at the disparity between the rich and poor from a perspective of compassion? Will we be able to lift humankind up and invert our pathetically bancrupt values toward justice? How about that “fierce urgency of now” now? Are we really ready for that.

    Hope being what it is, I certainly do hope.

    This change people are talking about is the same old re-run; it has always been, always is, and always will be. It’s time for a great awakening, we need one for sure, but where’s the voice crying in the wilderness? Until we ask in earnest, “where are the prophets?” instead of “where are the profits?”, we will just meander down this meaningless path, consuming every resource we can get our hands on until there’s nothing left but change or die. As bad as things have gotten, I’m not seeing any signs of the kind of CHANGE that will really bring about a change in human nature.

    For myself, I gave up on a political solution; I’m just walking down my street, and looking for what I can do. I’ll vote for Obama, and I’ll feel a whole lot better about that than I did voting for John Kerry, and I don’t give a damn about the rift between a bunch of spoiled boomers and the Democratic Party; I’m through expecting any of those guys, or the ultra rich liberal inteligentsia, to change the world. GO TO WHERE THE SUFFERING IS AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, NOW!

    Comment by matt powell | October 16, 2008 | Reply

  18. Barak Obama rising to the ‘head man’ of the Democratic party just reveals how flawed the runup primaries are to the election process. The really good public servants are too busy to devote 24 months to the carnival dog and pony show we have all suffered. Obama’s success was more a testimony to how Hillary Clinton blew her assured success. Everyone knew what Hillary is like, but few knew Barak Obama…a fresh breath (that might wind up smelling pretty bad). Obama will be the leader of the free world. After 20 months of being a U.S. Senator, and years of community development, as well as some time in the Illinois legislator. The man lacks common sense, wears nice suites,and has a melodious voice. Despite his being African American he comes across as an elitist. He is glib, laughes too much and always wants to be your friend.
    We are in for a big surprise after the election if he is elected. McCain is the war hero…nothing wrong with that. Perseverance and grit, a long track record and somewhat of a centrist, not unlike Joe Lieberman (who fervently supported McCain, after leaving the Democratic Party. Note that Joe did not become a Republican but remained steadfast as an independent democrat. Don’t get me wrong, I am really trying to like Obama, but I can’t…a gut feelingg..He says all the right things…but think about this if the congress is strongly democratic…Reid,Pelosi,and Obama. There will be little if any checks and balances. Not a good thing for any democracy.
    Despite all the dysharmony in the parties this has been a very exciting political season. Just about everyone is engaged, and fervently supports their candidate. There still remain a lot of undecided voters who will make a decision as they pull the voting lever, check off their ballot, or push the buttons on the new electronic voting machines.

    It is unfortunate that the financial crisis erupted just now. It’s easy to blame it all on the Republicans….it should not be at their feet alone. The democrats had alot to do with it as well.
    Look in the mirror….there’s the greedy one that wants credit, wants the bigger house, the newer car, expects to capitalize on inflation of the housing market,

    Why are we bailng out and giving 700 billion dollars to banks and investment bankers and mortgage companies that did not do their jobs and screwed the rest of us over.

    If the U.S. government wants to bail us out, then don’t give the money to the sharks, thieves, and sociopaths..
    Don’t give it to the banks…give it to the people that were screwed….then they can re-invest it in companies they trust. It’s like giving the wolf the keys to the chicken house. Which we have been doing for decades.

    Comment by Cataract Cowboy | October 25, 2008 | Reply

  19. The left has always been about change and progression. The right has always been about tradition and conservatism. The left feels that if we aren’t headed in the right direction, they’ve got to get us moving there. The right says, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    I fall to the right because I feel it’s governments place to protect our rights, not provide them. I believe it’s the government’s duty to not infringe on my rights, not dictate them. I believe real freedom comes when government stays out of my life as much as possible. Laws should be minimal and simple.

    Our government has gotten out of hand. It’s because of both Democrats and Republicans. This election is proof enough that both are parties of the middle. Democrats aren’t on the left. Republicans aren’t on the right. Both parties are trying to mirror each other to get all those coveted independents.

    Truth is Democrats need to return to the left and Republicans need to return to the right. Democrats need to get back to more government spending and programs, more taxes and more government benefits to all. Republicans need to get back to less government intervention in private life, lower taxes, and less government regulation and programs. Both these platforms appeal to people.

    Comment by Danny Finance | November 14, 2008 | Reply

  20. Painful contradictions, because these rich members are the ones now creating these vast inequalities that derail equal treatment. Within the Democratic party, the division between the haves and the have-nots is now fierce. Worse than anything in modern Europe.

    But, the lest of those in America are better off than many middle class Europeans.

    So over-all, I like our system best. It’s not perfect, but nothing managed by man ever will be.

    Comment by Bill | November 18, 2008 | Reply

  21. i live in an area where i get a good view of the rich, their behaviors and activities. this blog rings true. i’m glad i found it. i’m loving its unique perspective.

    Comment by mike | November 22, 2008 | Reply

  22. i would add that this doesn’t mean we should generalize against all rich, of course. but patterns develop within any sub culture and i believe there is a pattern here. but the problem is not rich people, per se. it is the capitalist system that pits the individual against the individual. i believe the products of capitalism can help achieve the above goals with the ultimate goal of capitalism eventually phasing itself out by producing sustainable and self-sufficient technologies to the masses. Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialism can win, if we use technological advancements to our advantage and learn how to use them to advance our arguments and points against capitalism. Any technology that frees the individual from the necessity of working for a wage to pay for something vital to their subsistence, like food or electricity, should be strongly advocated by liberals, progressives and socialists. The less people must work for others to support themselves, the less social discontent there will be. And the corollary of that is (which die-hard capitalists might approve of), the more self-sufficient and independent technology enables people to become for their basic subsistence, the less they will rely on your (other people’s) tax money to survive. So here’s a shocker: if you want LESS taxes in the future, vote for a tree hugging liberal. Their advocacy of eco-friendly and sustainable living models will eventually bring your taxes down. Why would you want to fight that? I advocate what can best be described as a “self-sufficient” socialism that uses technology, the products of capitalism, to provide sustainable living models to humanity and thus eventually free up people from the dependence on each other.

    Comment by mike | November 22, 2008 | Reply

  23. The solution to all of america’s problems is scrapping the bipartisan system.

    Comment by Glen | November 25, 2008 | Reply

  24. One more attempt. This site is making me paranoid. If I use the “o” word (obama) more than five times the link goes away. So, one more attempt.
    Lets’ go to the one area that no one will discuss or even think hard about for fear of being called a racist, bigot and all those other words that describe anyone who does not agree with the kennedys and obamas and those who want to sneak “reparation” for a certain ethnic group into reality. It (r………) would never pass in the real world so now we are being bombarded with “share the wealth”. Read closely obamas definition of who would take part in the “shares”, if this travesty were ever to actually take place. No one wants to be the one who states that the blacks are “due” great amounts of something for what the devil White slave owners did over a century and a half ago. Not to mention that very large numbers of these devils were North of the Mason-Dixon line. The attempts of the left to change history are so obvious that a blind man who does not use Braille could see this. And this is only one of the many, many things that America does not know about this new, inexperienced, come from where? politician who is going to be the next occupant of the White House. This country is in for “changes” the like of which could not have been dreamed up by the most wild-minded Sci-Fi writer. All we can say is “You wanted him, now you have got him”. As that other moron, Dr. Phil, says; “In one year ask yourself how that’s working for you”. Much mention is being made here of a Civil War; That may be the very least of the evil that’s about to come down on this great country.

    Comment by Jackson | December 15, 2008 | Reply

  25. I tend towards conservatism, but it is with delight I say you’re writing and your points are spot on. Materialism is the god of today and it transcends both parties. Mankind’s goal is to own, no matter what it is, for the sake of owning, for the sake of self-gratification. I do not, however, believe that government imposed “equality” is the answer. Equality must follow, not precede, freedom. People must be free to choose equality, else the equality you’ll end up with will be compulsory, thus resisted/sabotaged.

    Excellent thought and writing on your part, and much appreciated by this Republican. Keep it up.

    Comment by Middlin | December 17, 2008 | Reply

  26. Civil War within the Democratic party? I do not think so. A revolution within the Republican party is more likely and it is spurred by the need for an identity that will meet the needs of the moderate American Independent.

    It seems that the idea of being a conservative is lost in semantics. How is someone conservative: Laissez-faire with business, fiscally conservative, beholden to strong religious belief? There are many stripes here and it is evident from an observation in the results of the past election that a redefinition for a Republican is in need.

    The outgoing administration spent more than any in recent memory. This is not fiscal conservatism. The present economic crisis, the sole responsibility of Wall Street indicates that there is a limit to laissez-faire economic policy. Adam Smith, the 18th century author of the Wealth of Nations (a prescription and recipe for classical capitalism), surrendered near the end of life because of rampant greed. Conservatism does not fit with this model anymore. A more theocratic approach, involving the culture of right wing evangelical Christians is too narrowly focused. There are Catholics, Methodists, Quakers, Jews, agnostics, atheists and many other religions and non-religions that are part of the American tapestry. The Christian right does not suit all. So this does not work either. What works?

    It appears that thoughtful use of today’s technology will yield the correct approach and it is really based on the fundamentals of Utilitarianism – ah, the greatest good for the greatest number. Newer energy policy driven by technology will move us toward energy independence. It will take awhile and in its wake it ought to establish a newer philosophy from which we might be able to launch a newer auto industry.

    We are all, I think, moving away from the greed of the past toward a model governed by technology, a technocracy. It appears to me that this is what is evolving. The revolution within the conservative Republican party depends on this newer model – made up of some old ideas – but it is evident that a change in philosophy is important to Republican survival. A unifying approach is needed.

    So, it is not so much that the democrats won as it is an issue of how the republicans lost: Overspending, unnecessary war, corporate greed, the greatest good for the fewest, blah, blah ,blah.

    Comment by jnadzam | December 29, 2008 | Reply

  27. For too long, even many progressives forgot about the economic issues of concern to working families and concentrated on social and environmental issues. And we have free traitors within the Democratic Party like the Clintons who pushed our country in the direction of more free trade, outsourcing and deregulation. Right now, I think a lot of people across the political spectrum are waking up and recognizing the failure of free market policies. Even the rich may be willing to support more economic regulation simply because they are now losing money too but Obama will likley on doing things that must be done like raising taxes out of fear of offending his wealthy supporters.

    Comment by RD | February 1, 2009 | Reply

  28. “We Sick and tired of your ism skism game” Left ha! There is no left in this country. Hell even this site seems rightist to me… You have a survey that allows you to choose if America is a democracy, republic or democracy and republic. Try plutocracy. And again what left? The difference between Democrats and Republicans is less than the difference between Coke and Pepsi. The brush being painted with here is more like a mop… liberals are this, conservatives are that. It’s all rhetoric. “More matter and less art” Shakespeare. I have to give it to you though it looks like your driving some traffic, I wish I could do that… but to where are these folks being driven … You want some revolution? Or do you want to play partisan politics? Or do you work for US intelligence? The mantra of the Liberal or the chant of a conservative are both irrelevant, the 2 perspectives aren’t liberal and conservative they are ruling class and workers… The sooner people put aside this partisan bullshit the sooner we will get a revolution.

    Comment by verbwarrior | February 21, 2009 | Reply

  29. mm.. thank you :)

    Comment by peakebase | April 15, 2009 | Reply

  30. Looking at the results it looks like this site has been visited en masse by right wing internet trolls.

    Comment by Anonymous | May 1, 2009 | Reply

  31. This sounds like the whining the GOP is doing about its own party. This is the way it is when the scope of your life is based on interfering with other people’s lives.I do not care if you are “left” or “right”. Tend to your own business. If you want to help the “have nots”, spread YOUR wealth. You have no right to ask the government to take the wealth of others. Maybe if enough people spread their own wealth through the virtues of love and compassion, we won’t need government programs, or lefties talking about how we have sacrificed morality for materialism. Putting a gun to someone’s head and taking their money (taxes) to give to someone else (social programs) cannot be considered “moral” by any reasonable standard. I am all for helping the disadvantaged…on your own. How much have you (collective not just the author) given to charity this month? Left, Right, Democrat, Republican, I am sick of all y’all.

    Comment by al | May 3, 2009 | Reply

    • Well done Al, I could not agree more.

      Left or Right, it is all about dragging wealth and freedom away from one group of people to serve another. Those who resent so-called modern materialism commit the sin of envying their neighbors ass. It is they who are the truly greedy; they want that ass but rather than earn it, have rationalized a means of taking it!

      Let them spend their own money to buy their own ass, or contribute to their own charity. They are like thosd incredibly hypocritical, charity organizations, environmentalist, &/or animal rights groups, who spend more money soliciting money than they actually spend on their causes!

      The Left seeks to direct (legislate) the flow of material goods (via money) whilst insisting that anything goes in morality.

      The Right seeks to direct (legislate) moral behavior, whilst insisting on freedom for the flow of material goods.

      Both sides seek to control the lives of citizens, according to what they think is of greater importance. So, on the Left we have Big Brother and on the Right we have the local priest.

      The trouble is, BOTH sides are un-American swine, seeking to direct Americans’ lives. BOTH seek to reinterpret or rewrite the Constitution, yet BOTH claim to side with The Founders. In fact, neither understands the Constitution, neither understands American political history, and neither undertands the Inalienable Rights of the Individual.

      Franklin’s famous remark, “A Republic, if you can keep it” has given few of these fatuous Americans any cause to truly think through what kind of Republic the Founders created, and fought and died to create.

      All those thousands of desperate men, fighting for that ideal, only to be betrayed by their descendants —who live better than billions around the world because of those ideals and those thousands.

      eI weep over their betrayal and loath the scum who are so intellectually depraved that, failing to understand a little bathwater, solve their ‘problem’ by throwing out the baby!

      Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009 | Reply

  32. Right on! It’s all too true. Thank Goodness Obama was a secret socialist all along and is reviving FDR and the New Deal.

    Even a the most atheistic person can appreciate this sentiment: “What you do to the least of Me, you do to Me,” from Jesus. It’s just a shame that so many so-called Christians ignore this.


    Comment by Ms. Billie M. Spaight | May 22, 2009 | Reply

    • Right Billie, Obama was a secret socialist.

      Though Obama’s socialism was hardly secret. You apparently hold admiration for a man you consider to be a poseur, a liar. Well at least the Left is consistently dishonest.

      Be aware that most of Obama’s wealth came to him by manipulating the finances of organizations such as ACORN, so that certain executives, especially him, were highly paid. In that respect, he has shown himself to be one of the greediest politicians to ever campaign for the Presidency.

      That ‘angle’ is no different from such swine as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez et al. By promoting solutions for the poor, these men make themselves wealthier than all but the most brilliant businessmen, but the poor end up being no better off!!

      Comment by RnBram | July 25, 2009 | Reply

  33. emerging yourself in politics is about as worthwhile as watching the grass grow. The only left and right I want to hear is when my gps is telling me directions.

    Comment by Nathan | May 31, 2009 | Reply

  34. Wait you expect “civic behavior” from the wealthy elite? They do not want any part of our new multicultural utopia they only want to push this nonsense on the poor and middle class whites!

    So hide in your ivory towers while the real Americans suffer. Keep raising our taxes, invading our privacy, and funding massive multinational corporations. Continue eroding our morals and sure go ahead legalize all those Mexicans in our country.

    I notice some of you guys have caught on. The US government is a sham and the left/right thing is a distraction. The wealthy elite have an iron grip on Democrats and Republicans. Its the bankers, the Federal Reserve behind all of this, dig deep enough and you’ll see what I mean!

    Comment by WN | June 6, 2009 | Reply

  35. The question is, who is causing all the trouble? Why is our economy collapsing? Why are we fighting so many wars? Who are the REAL terrorists? Who’s behind the abortion slaughter? Who’s behind the nationalizing of American business? Who owns the federal reserve Bank (it is a privet bank)? Why do we pay interest on our own money?

    Comment by Inseriarewwag | July 6, 2009 | Reply

  36. I enjoy reading this site, always find out random new stuff.
    Emily Randall

    Comment by huskylover | February 21, 2010 | Reply

  37. Do you have copy writer for so good articles? If so please give me contacts, because this really rocks! :)

    Comment by TaZmAn | March 12, 2010 | Reply

  38. i definitely adore your writing taste, very attractive,
    don’t give up and keep penning in all honesty , because it just simply that is worth to read it.
    looking forward to browse much of your current well written articles;)

    Comment by KersSeereus | March 24, 2010 | Reply

  39. The liberal wing of the Democratic party has lost all moral credibility. These people have the same social Darwinist views as the followers of Ayn Rand–I’ve got mine and everyone else can go to hell’ The fact that workers are forced to work for low wages and no benefits does not concern these vermin in the least as long as they can profit from the misery they cause. The Democratic party is infested with these vermin and there is no place left to go for those of us who believe in social justice. There is not a dimes worth of difference between both parties. Where people get this ‘socialist’ crap when referring to Obama is beyond me. He is as center right as the Clintons.

    Comment by J Davis | June 19, 2010 | Reply

  40. Let’s be frank, shall we? Both the Democrats and the Republicans are in deep shit. Do you really think that Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice than Obama? I don’t think so. She is just as centrist as he is. As for John McCain, he or any other Republican couldn’t save this country if his life depended upon it.

    Also, I never thought that Obama, Clinton, or McCain could solve the economic woes of this country. Even back in 2008. I pretty much suspected that our financial situation was too damaged (even around that time) for the country or the world to overcome within a year or less. And I cannot help but wonder why the American public did not sense this.

    I came across a magazine article that compared Obama to FDR, much to the former’s detriment. What an ass that writer was! Apparently, he had forgotten that FDR never really overcame the Depression. It just gradually disappeared by the end of the 1930s. And not all of his policies were successful.

    There isn’t a Republican or Democratic politician out there who can solve our economic woes. Americans need to open their eyes and realize that we simply have to toughen it out, until the times get better.

    Comment by ladylavinia1932 | September 22, 2010 | Reply

  41. They should just have the same system as in the UK, then we would be fine. The UK is so much better.. xx

    Comment by Dan | November 9, 2011 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: