My problem with the Left

There are several things that I see on the Left that I believe are not good policy. I will do my best to explain my reason for believing this and seeing as how I am termed the "ATS Liberal Commentator", I believe it is just a good idea for the Left to call out fellow members of their ranks.


Affirmative Action: The Left constantly yells at the Right calling them racist but what could be more racist then Affirmative Action? It is the belief that particular groups of people, minorities, should be favored. This favoritism comes in many forms, some examples include a company being required to have on staff a particular number of minorities to match the demographics of the community regardless of their skills. It also applies to schooling where minorities are permitted to receive lower scores and be admitted to colleges and are even favored over more talented competition whom happen to not be a minority.

Not only is it institutional racism but it is also negative for the ones the laws are targeted at. It teaches minorities that they do not have to work as hard as others to succeed in life that things will be handed to them rather than working hard at obtaining such things as higher education. So not only is it racist but it harms minorities by teaching them that they don't have to work as hard and basically saying that they are not equal to the majority of the population (i.e. Whites).

We should enforce an end to discrimination and penalize businesses and schools that discriminate, but quotas of preferences are simply racist and demoralizing.


Labor Unions: The Left continues to attack the Right for supporting big business while at the same time receiving massive donations from Unions. Yes Unions represent workers but couldn't businesses claim that they are representing their investors so what is the difference? There is no difference big moneyed interests should be denounced from all forms of politics and political influence. Why should we ban corporations from donating money when we would continue to let Unions do the same?

While I support the idea of Labor Unions and I believe they were instrumental in establishing a solid middle class. I also believe that allowing government workers to unionize is a conflict of interest, seeing as how government is not business and they will 9 out of 10 follow the laws they established there is no reason to have a union enforcing a contract with the governing body. People should have every right to either join a union or not join a union and Labor Union should not be given government privileges, but rather simply have a bargaining force against employers which is optional.

We should force an end to wrong doing in the workplace and we should provide for more oversight into working conditions, but we should not be allowing Unions to legislate law.


War: The Left fought ferociously against the war in Iraq and some against the War in Afghanistan yet when they elect a Democratic politician who is supposedly on their side they drop the whole rallying cry even though the war continues, the deficit from war continues to go up, innocent men, women and children of the ME lose their lives and our soldiers continue to die. Yet the Left has grown silent, not willing to go out and challenge a Liberal president simply because he is Liberal.

Stop being hypocrites! Obama is just as Hawkish as Bush was and he has continued and even escalated the war in Afghanistan and lied to the public on saying the war in Iraq is over when we still have at least 50,000 soldiers there and they are performing military actions and some are dying. Yet I hear crickets coming from the Left. Some Lefties have had the courage to stand up against the war machine, but I have not seen protests or other street demonstrations calling for the end of the wars.

The wars need to end and we need to bring our troops home NOW! Close down all those foreign military bases because we are acting like an empire and we were strictly told by our founding fathers to avoid imperialism and colonialism.

Civil Rights/Liberties: Under George W. Bush the Left was calling Bush a Fascist and was attacking the government for ignoring and destroying our civil rights/liberties. Now that Obama has become president I don't hear the Left calling Obama a Fascist and criticizing his government for continuously violating the Bill of Rights. Why do you have to be so hypocritical on this very important subject?

Obama and this government have not improved our civil liberties/rights in our nation they say a lot of words about it but do not act upon these words. They promised to close Guantanamo and it is still open, many promised to abolish the Patriot Act and it is still active and was even passed again to continue, now they even have passed a bill allowing the government to select people whom they designate as terrorists and assassinate them. Joe Liebermann has called for some citizens to have their citizenship removed, so they will become a 'man without a country'. So where is the Left screaming about Civil Rights/Liberties?

Obama and this government does not care about those rights that we hold so dear, they are just as hawkish and as tyrannical as the last government, nothing has changed except the letter.

Life, Liberty and Property: Where are the Left trying to claim the founding fathers and their message? A message of Liberalism at the time. They claim to be Liberals but cringe when the right talks about the Founding Fathers. Why do you cringe, I don't get it? The founding fathers advocated for a secular society where you had the ability and right to govern yourself, why don't you try and harness that message instead of avoiding it?

During the Age of Enlightenment the founding fathers were Liberals and at that time the Liberals were on the Left yet just 220 years later the Left is terrified of their message. I believe it truly resonates with our ideals and beliefs and we should use it against the Right who would have been against Jefferson and Paine during the Revolution. Yet you continue to let them steal the message of the founders as if it belongs to them and you run from it.

I believe we should be looking at the Founding Fathers for guidance, they were the wisest men in American political thought, they deserve to have their true ideals espoused by an honest group of people in this country once again.

Wow, I thought I was going to have to come and add a few for you, but you covered it pretty good.

Question: could you back a move to limit the federal government and implement the leftist ideas in states alone?

That is how it is supposed to be done based upon the Constitution.

What say you?

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Wow, I thought I was going to have to come and add a few for you, but you covered it pretty good.

Question: could you back a move to limit the federal government and implement the leftist ideas in states alone?

That is how it is supposed to be done based upon the Constitution.

What say you?

That has already been something I stated before. In two seperate threads, particularly in my support for the Articles of Confederation.

Articles of Confederation(my thread)

I am glad to see you enjoyed my thread seeing as how we don't ever agree.

reply to post by Misoir


Hey, we do agree on one thing I hope. Forcing others to your system is tyranny. Everything should be voluntary.

Otherwise the system is doomed to failure. When you have a system that subjugates or abrogates rights, it is doomed to failure from the beginning. The ol boiled frog analogy is what has been used against us. Well, the water is boiling now, and this frog wants out.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


I was considering creating a thread that lays out my platform and why I think it should be the new future for the Left. It would reduce the role of government to simply doing the things that people/business can't do better or best. The major split from the right would be that it supports a moderate welfare state, military neutrality, anti-imperialism, civil libertarianism and secularism.

I know we would disagree on many of the roles of government but I think it would be best for the Left to return more to Classical Liberalism while simply maintaining a Welfare State. Massive cuts in taxes, massive cuts in spending, foreign policy based on neutrality. I believe that would be preferable.

Give people more Liberty and Freedom and they will make better decisions for our society. I liked many of the ideals of Adam Smith. If you know about him.

reply to post by Misoir


I applaud you Misoir!

If I may, I would like to add my own commentary as to the problem with the right.............EVERYTHING YOU JUST WROTE ha!

In all seriousness though, the courage to stand up against the grain shows true character and strengths. To not follow a crowd, to understand that what you believe does not have to be held by the masses. The same could be said about others that think they must champion all the Right has to say.

In that such:

War, in the types we are in are only for the health of the State. Nothing more. It is sad. They have nothing to do with self-defense or defense of our nation. While President Bush pushed for it, nearly all our representatives authorized it, yet they get a free pass. It is time to hold all accountable, not just the President.

Affirmative action: Probably one of the most backward thinking social engineering programs in the United States. Your commentary on it hit the nail on the head.

Labor Unions: There is a time and place for everything. Not all unions are evil, just as not all businesses are evil.

Again, excellent thread.

When you say "the right" and "the left" what exactly does that mean in this context? Right and Left are broad generalizations at best, so if you could give us your personal definitions, that would help clarify it a bit.


thanks, S&F

Originally posted by METACOMET
When you say "the right" and "the left" what exactly does that mean in this context? Right and Left are broad generalizations at best, so if you could give us your personal definitions, that would help clarify it a bit.


thanks, S&F

Generally the Left means Democrats (Liberals, Progressives, Socialists).

Originally posted by Misoir
Affirmative Action: The Left constantly yells at the Right calling them racist but what could be more racist then Affirmative Action? It is the belief that particular groups of people, minorities, should be favored.

I agree that we cannot force private businesses, just like we cannot force people in general, for accepting integration. That being said, I believe that Americans, all americans, need to be protected in the work place from an unlawful firing based on race and creed.

Labor Unions: Why should we ban corporations from donating money when we would continue to let Unions do the same?

Actually I can say, speaking as a liberal myself, and as with discussing with some of my friends that are politically left, our opposition to the supreme courts ruling over unlimited donations were based over both corporations, Unions and organizations. I believe lobbying has contributed significant to the state of DC at the moment and with this ruling it will not get any better. The constitution gives us the freedom to freely petition government however it does not allow for people to freely financially bribe public officials, which this law from the
supreme court allows. Not as if our officials were not being bribed before, but this law makes it certifiable and acceptable in DC.

War:
Stop being hypocrites! Obama is just as Hawkish as Bush was and he has continued and even escalated the war in Afghanistan and lied to the public on saying the war in Iraq is over when we still have at least 50,000 soldiers

This is a very common misconception to those in constant opposition to the Obama administration. First of all Obama actually promised he would increase and escalate the war in Afghanistan. He had stated so numerous times in the primaries, he ran on the policy of ending the Iraq war by 2011 and refocusing on war efforts in Afghanistan.

www.youtube.com...

He clearly stated time and time again that a we need to 'significantly increase our presence in afghanistan' we need to 'refocus' on the war effort in Afghanistan. He has held this view since he started running, so had you and many others here paid attention, you would not be sitting here whining that he 'broke' this promise.

Secondly, I have found that when it came to Afghanistan the feeling of liberals were mostly mixed. Most liberals actually supported the war effort in Afghanistan over the years. I hardly saw any opposition to the Afghanistan war from liberals back in 2002 when we just began entering there. Just because many liberals including myself were anti-iraq war does not equate to us being opposed to the war efforts in Afghanistan. Those liberals who had opposed our continued presence in Afghanistan, they have been just as vocal, but on the issue of the Afghanistan war there has never been a definite stance for all liberals.

Civil Rights/Liberties:
Obama and this government have not improved our civil liberties/rights in our nation they say a lot of words about it but do not act upon these words. They promised to close Guantanamo and it is still open, many promised to abolish the Patriot Act

I actually agree that has failed to sufficiently differenciate his policies over privacy as opposed to Bush. However while Obama had marketed himself as a different politician (as many others) he never made any mention of ending the Patriot act. In my opinion he could have made a stand but he did not and regardless of the excuses it is unacceptable, but nobody can argue that he broke a promise by not dismantling it, as not such promise was made. As for Guantanamo, indeed he has been slack on that, however whats more so hard is the fact that hardly any state wishes to get behind the idea of placing Guantanamo detainees where they are, neither are the republicans being any more helpful in supporting the dismantling of the prison. So as much as Obama failed to meet the deadline, he was ignorant to assume he could simply close it that easily considering the opposition. I have found many posters complain that Obama has not close Guantanamo, and then complain about the idea of these prisoners being place in their state. Its rather hypocritical, and a catch 22 for the administration. The issue is in part that this adminstration was not tough enough.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I did not pay attention to Obama's campaign for president, I was supporting Kucinich and Paul. If Obama said he would escalate the war then he stuck to his word and I apology for that statement. I also did not state that every Liberal was against the Afghanistan war, I said some were.

Overall we agree on the problems on the Left.

Haha, if Obama is Left then European governments are hardcore marxists...!!!

Originally posted by masterp
Haha, if Obama is Left then European governments are hardcore marxists...!!!

We are going by the scale of American politics, not international politics.

Originally posted by Misoir

Originally posted by masterp
Haha, if Obama is Left then European governments are hardcore marxists...!!!

We are going by the scale of American politics, not international politics.

110V is same voltage whether you measure it in America or in Europe. The fact that the mains in Europe is 220V is immaterial. Units are same.

Saying Obama is "left" is at least somewhat inane.

reply to post by Misoir


I want to respond to you on Affirmative Action, specifically (the other issues don't really interest me as I don't care about the left-ring paradigm).

The core of my dispute is that you neglect the importance of collective rights. The rights of collective, corporate or communal 'persons' have long been asserted and defended in philosophy and law. While the rights of the individual are also important, the State, itself a corporate legal person, must concern itself with the rights of communities as a whole. It would be nice and tidy to say that America is the community and that all citizens are guaranteed equal rights and nothing more, but this does not reflect the reality. The reality is that America is made up of many communities, each with their own unique needs that must be addressed by the State.

On its face, affirmative action is meant to combat racism that exists in society today and the racism that existed in the past. It is meant to undo generations of damage to the African-American people (and other groups to a lesser extent).

The sense of entitlement you describe, is it really so misplaced? Aren't minority communities entitled to reparations for the sufferings that they have endured? Affirmative Action is but one of the ways in which the end of discrimination is enforced; it seeks to undo the damage of decades, centuries of inhuman crimes perpetrated not only against individuals, but against entire communities. It seeks to normalize racial relations in America, to make the education and work markets reflect the demographic makeup of the population, and it enforces this racial equity through Affirm. Act. laws.

Is affirmative action racist? Not in a negative sense, no. It does not tell black Americans that they cannot succeed without the government's help. It tells them that the black community will be supported and protected by the state until such time as they reach parity with the white community (in terms of cultural or human capital). Does it tell an individual that they cannot succeed because of their race? No more than any other welfare program. It certainly makes decisions based on race, but isn't helping disadvantaged minorities much better than pretending that ideas of race do not exist or affect people negatively? Isn't it much better than pretending that the racism of the past has no impact on the present and that all of its traces have been erased?

Affirmative action is a sort of social uplift program, like welfare, that attempts to raise up those who would never, or perhaps not for a very long time, reach the higher levels of society. In the context of the African-American community it is specifically aimed at undoing centuries of institutionalized racial inferiority.

Black, whites, hispanics et cetera may have equal rights under the law, but that does not mean that they are on a level playing field. The power structures of the USA are disproportionately controlled by whites (esp. men) because the white community was not suppressed as racial minorities were. Intergenerational poverty and undereducation are problems for members of all racial groups in America, but they are much more severe for non-white minorities because they were held down for many years.

It might take a great deal of time, but minority groups will rise up to take their rightful place in American society. Affirmative Action is meant to speed this process up by giving minorities learning opportunities, in academic and work life. In the past four decades we can see noticeable improvements in the welfare of the black community; can we honestly say that the community would be this well off in the year 2010 if the State hadn't enforced affirmative action and other policies of racial tolerance and diversity? Supposedly unfair policies of racial diversity in job or academic placement have given African-Americans opportunities that they would not have had otherwise. In the end, isn't the real criticism of Affirmative Action that it works?

If there were no affirmative action, then present racists would be free to turn down prospective employees based on their own racial prejudice. Whites would benefit disproportionately from such a laissez-faire racial policy, as they still make up the majority of America's upper classes (i.e. employers). Nothing would change, or else the racial composition of the student- and work-forces would change very slowly to reflect the demographic make-up of society.

interesting thread.

one of my main beefs with the Left in America is the old-guard Liberals. The ones who believe in perpetual top-down funding from the Federal Government for the commoners paid for by the spoils of war and exploitation.

Clearly this is an unsustainable approach, At some point, the riches dry up, and we have to figure out a way to keep the roads paved and the lights on. It would appear the right wing has totally lost their compass, since they think roads pave themselves and private industry will keep the water clean, so we can consider them useless.

this leaves us with a need to create a new movement out of the shell of the Democratic party. It requires both seizing the mechanisms of control while simultaneously opening new channels and avenues for change.

The shell game of Dem/Rep politics is surely coming to a close, as the riches it is built upon are largely amasses in Dick Cheney's coffers (and many of his friends and colleagues). We must figure out a way to maintain a functioning government that has the common sense of true fiscal conservatism with the pragmatism of functional government policy.

T merely reject 'Government" is absurd. Government is nothing more than the mechanisms of our Democratic Republic. To reject it is to reject everything we have inherited. What we need to do is EMBRACE government, to make it whole again, to actively weed out the rotten segments, and PARTICIPATE in the way responsible land-owners once did in town hall meetings (and still do in small towns everywhere).

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I did not pay attention to Obama's campaign for president, I was supporting Kucinich and Paul.

not to be too off topic, but Kucinich and Paul?

those are two VERY different approaches to government. the only thing in common i can see is an anti-war stance.

Originally posted by justadood

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I did not pay attention to Obama's campaign for president, I was supporting Kucinich and Paul.

not to be too off topic, but Kucinich and Paul?

those are two VERY different approaches to government. the only thing in common i can see is an anti-war stance.

edit on 19-9-2010 by justadood because: (no reason given)

Only on Economic Issues. But they represented integrity and indepence, which could not be found among the rest of the crowed.

Their Social issues of personal responsibility, Civil Rights issues focusing on giving people more rights, Foreign Policy focusing on Anti-Imperialism and Non-Interventionism. I supported all of those things which were not present in any of the other candidates.

Originally posted by Misoir
There is no difference big moneyed interests should be denounced from all forms of politics and political influence.

Last time I checked, it was the "big moneyed interests" that drove us into two wars and one pretty damn serious recession. We are dragging behind civilized world in education and transportation technology. Why should I give a flying toss for "big moneyed interests" when they have the public over the barrel? Screw them. If you support these, you are nothing short of a masochist.