America: A potential spectrum shift to the left?

[Beckwin]

Americans, and the rest of the world, are getting accustomed to the Obama administration. It's been a few months now and we've had some fairly significant moving and shaking begin at home, and at least some nice gestures abroad. But this topic is less about Obama himself and more about a potential future of American politics, although Obama will certainly enter the discussion in numerous ways.

A major significance of Obama's election, if not the major significance, is how in my opionion, it signaled a popular rejection of politics to the right of center-right. Now, Bush was hardly an Austrian economic rightist, but let's not ignore the corporatist/very-corporate-friendly direction of capitalism either. Tax cuts for the wealthy, capital gains, and for corporations. Cush no-bid deals for crony companies like Halliburton. Liberal contracting of private military groups. Enlisting major telecoms to assist in the monitoring of citizens. Deregulation of futures/commodities, and the tail end of the Clinton admin GOP-led replacement of Glass-Steagall with Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which bears significant blame for the current mess, particularly regarding the secondaries/securities market failures. And Bush, I would say, absolutely did represent an social ideology further out than center-right, as evidenced by his sly abortion policy, PATRIOT Act (yes, which did have Dem congressmen's approval), stance on torture, faith-based initiatives, abstinence only funding, stem cell restrictions, and so on. The American people came to reject that ideology in the last election- Sen. John McCain, for all his virtues as a public servant and with respect to the differences he did actually have with Bush, did largely represent "more of the same", especially when examining his campaign concessions to the prevailing GOP currents.

The American people have rejected all that. The question is, does that alone signify a spectrum shift to the left?

No.

It could just simply mean that America got pushed a little too far to the right, and once the 9/11 & Iraq fervor wore off and the American people sobered up, they decided they wanted a return to the comfiness of the center-right- enough so that they'd elect a skinny black guy (that grew up without his father, no less) with an Arabic middle name and a funny last name... even if that guy would lie slightly to the left of center-right. And yes, the funny name does bear significance, because 9/11 brought out some of the American peoples' lowest lows when it came to the treatment of anyone who appeared slightly connected to Islam/the Middle East (I'm proud that we've largely recovered from that nonsense, at least the worst of it). But no, Obama is not a far-left liberal or socialist, although he is the most left-leaning president since FDR. He still fits fairly comfortably on the left fringe of the standing mainstream political spectrum.

However, let's look beyond Obama for a bit. I believe that if we do so, we will find some initial signifiers of a popular shift of America to the left. Not to the far-left, but a shift nonetheless, however slight it may turn out to be.

Mass-movements and demonstrations

This is the item that goes back the furthest along the timeline. Left-sympathizing movements have been particularly amazing in the past 8-ish years. The stomping that the mainstream "left" party received in the previous couple presidential and congressional elections, along with the ideological stomping the government administered to those with leftist sentiments, must've lit a lot of fires under a lot of asses.

Demonstrations in favor of immigration, against the war, against the GOP, and recently in favor of gay marriage/rights have had very very high turnouts. The immigration rallies of the past few years have drawn higher numbers in single cities than the corporate-backed Tea Bagging did nationwide. We all recall the massive protest at this years RNC (and that topic, lol). On top of that, the left has found a lot of success utilizing the now matured realm of the interwebs for organizing and awareness. Youtubers like The Young Turks (who I kinda find corny in presentation) and Brave New Films bring in tons of hits; sites from HuffPo to MoveOn to DemocracyNow are widely read. And of course,the Obama campaign (and now administration) has harnessed the internet in unprecendented ways, in addition to significant achievements in grassroots organizing and public event turnouts. The more libertarian branch of rightward thinking has admittedly also had some internet and RL movement success, but nothing quite on the scale of the left. The mainstream right, meanwhile, has been downright laughable- McCain's pork-shooting Space Invaders clone, Conservapedia, and Hannidate.

Gay Marriage

It seems not long ago, the survival of gay marriage and the advancement of gay rights seemed to be in such a precarious position. California voters killed the rights of gays to marry in popular referendum- fucking California! The supposed liberal stronghold of the country and home of San Francisco, for crying out loud. On top of that, the future looked so gloomy as none of the conservative Bush SCOTUS appointees will be retiring anytime soon.

But all of the sudden, things are starting to happen. This April was dubbed "Gaypril" in refererence to the several states to approve gay marriage in that month. More recently, Maine approved it as well.... so shall May 09 be known in history as uh... "Gay"? That brings us to 5 states, and there's rumors of a D.C. measure forthcoming. It seems that the American public is suddenly more friendly to the idea of homosexuals getting married.

A Change in Ownership

This one might be slipping by the radars of many, but I find it particularly interesting and symbolic: Chrysler, one of the failing US automakers, is now 55% owned by the United Auto Workers. It's a complicated deal that's bringing in Fiat to direct the company now, but even just symbolically, the workers are now in control of the means of production; they own the factory they work in. The Marxist in me is as giddy as a schoolgirl.

GM, although not a majority share, is also handing over assets to the UAW and federal government. It's kinda sad that the workers are accepting shitty assets in exchange for erasing pension fund obligations, but hey, at least in the future they may be in control of their workplaces and will be more invested in the company doing well rather than having to focus all their efforts on making sure they aren't destitute when they retire.

The public has largely been in support of the bailouts, which may indicate a complacency with lack of corporate accountability, but conversely they have been outraged at the golden-parachute phenomena and largely OK with government ownership of these failed companies.

Drug Legalization

Obama recently laughed off a question about marijuana legalization, but the fact that a question like that made it to the President speaks something of it's own. And now, Republican (I almost wanna call him a RINO at this point) Gov. Schwarzenegger is making comments about seriously taking a look at how marijuana legalization can benefit his state of California- for example, it would quickly bring in over 1 billion dollars of new revenue for a state 40B in the hole.

I should provide some sauce before saying this, but iirc, most public opinion polls of late seem to indicate people are generally OK with at least marijuana legalization.

This all coincides with Mexico potentially decriminalizing/legalizing most drugs, as they hopefully find that the way to win the WAR ON DRUGS is to not fucking play. Personally I think a bilateral legalization of pot would help both countries immensely and improve our border situation.


-------------------------------------

And there we have it. I believe these recent trends may be signaling a legitimate potential shift to the left in American politics. Yes, it's early. Yes, this is speculation- so let's speculate. Do you see any other signals of leftward shifting, regardless of how early they may be? It's also worth mentioning exactly how the GOP is gonna reform and where that will push the discourse... I think it's safe to say that the social conservatism of the Silent Majority, Reagan's America, and the fundie-right that got Bush elected is history.

I'm also curious how fellow liberals or leftists feel about these signals and where they may be taking us.

So like, discuss.

tl;dr

[Mizango]

Cheers!

The gay rights thing is something that has been long overdue. I mean, I know its a lifestyle choice and all.....

I just like seeing the GOP doing a complete 180 on their backwoods thinking. I fucking hate rednecks.

[guartz]

All the things you mentioned as changes, shouldn't even be decided by the government in the first place. However, if you skip the (in my opinion) unnecessarily complicated social issues, and look at the core of Washington policies, specifically IMF and country cuilding, international policies, Internal Economic policies, etc, none of it has changed even slightly, with the exception of potentially expanding.

[Beckwin]

you did see that I acknowledged Obama alone does not constitute a potential shift to the left because he is very much in the current mainstream spectrum, right?

and I'm talking about a shift to the left, not to the libertarian right.

[Mizango]

Guartz you're slacking, I expected a random William Cooper quote in there somewhere. We need to work on getting your consistency back up to elite status.

[guartz]

That's sort of irrelevant to my point, Beckwin. What I'm trying to say is, issues like gay marriage, pot smoking and even whether one guy makes key decisions in a public company or many people make the same exact decisions in a public company, does not constitute any actual changes in the government.

[Beckwin]

I'm talking about a spectrum shift, however slight. It will start with the electorate, and it will start with domestic, "closer to home" issues. and I'm talking about a potential change, and implying that it's in the early stages still.

It's also worth mentioning that a key right-leaning voting bloc is gonna die off in the next 15-20 years.

[guartz]

Guartz you're slacking, I expected a random William Cooper quote in there somewhere. We need to work on getting your consistency back up to elite status.

I'm gettin' there, hold your pale horses.

[guartz]

I'm talking about a spectrum shift, however slight. It will start with the electorate, and it will start with domestic, "closer to home" issues. and I'm talking about a potential change, and implying that it's in the early stages still.

It's also worth mentioning that a key right-leaning voting bloc is gonna die off in the next 15-20 years.

Yes, and you are still assuming that whether this shift is happening or will happen, is gonna somehow change something?

[Beckwin]

that's what we're here to speculate over! is it gonna be an anarcho-socialist paradise in the next 50 years (lol who am I kidding?) or simply more like current Sweden, or Finland, or Canada, or France, or Britain?

try reading the thread next time. I know it was long so I'll forgive you, but put in the effort and pull those bootstraps.

[Kuya]

Actually, i completely agree with Guartz on this, without trying to demean the relatively progressive advance that has seemingly been made.

[guartz]

that's what we're here to speculate over! is it gonna be an anarcho-socialist paradise in the next 50 years (lol who am I kidding?) or simply more like current Sweden, or Finland, or Canada, or France, or Britain?

try reading the thread next time. I know it was long so I'll forgive you, but put in the effort and pull those bootstraps.

Well, if you insist, then my speculation is that nothing significant will change. That's my original point.

Bah, you don't get to call me dumb just because you didn't understand it the first few times!

[Mizango]

I'm gettin' there, hold your pale horses.

Now that's more like it.

[Beckwin]

you mentioned something about the IMF (conspiracy theory alert! bweeee-ooooh bweee-oooooh) and also said that internal economic policy is not changing, when we're already seeing major industry ownership restructuring (including workers taking controlling shares), not to mention a public that is calling out for accountability (I tried to keep this away from Obama, but he's working on legislation to call in tax havens and there was a recent suit that had a swiss bank paying a settlement for sheltering tax frauds).

[Creeps]

I read the thread and although history is my area of study rather than political science, history tells us that it's not possible to change the dynamic of a nation's government without massive destabilization and suffering. That being said, my opinion is that the US will never be a purely socialist nation or anything resembling one. Sure, we might adopt some socialist policy like universal healthcare, blah blah blah, but to even attempt to transform a nation so immersed in capitalism and its policies into a socialist nation, in my opinion, is irresponsible and extremely unwise.

For the record, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, so please don't kill me :[

[guartz]

Actually, i completely agree with Guartz on this, without trying to demean the relatively progressive advance that has seemingly been made.

I have a theory on that actually. The social changes in law came about due to public demand, not the other way around. That is, law didn't allow women to vote first, then people accepted it. Etc,

know where I'm headin' with this? lol

Anyway, awesome thread, kuddos beckwin. Time constraints, need to go.

[Creeps]

Upon further pondering, I've decided my first post was kind of pointless and missed the point of the OP. Sorry!

[Kuya]

I have a theory on that actually. The social changes in law came about due to public demand, not the other way around. That is, law didn't allow women to vote first, then people accepted it. Etc,

know where I'm headin' with this? lol

Anyway, awesome thread, kuddos beckwin. Time constraints, need to go.

I agree with that, it's almost always either a sociological factor that forces some change in laws or as a response to a long and arduous fight from the ground up. As for the idea of America leaning left, i don't buy it. If whether America is more progressive or more conservative is dependent on what president is in office, then the change will always be temporary and you'll always have a back and forth. I do think sometime soon gays will be able to marry quite easily, but i can see this being a double edged sword and not very important for anyone other than gay people.

[Nystul]

The American people have rejected all that. The question is, does that alone signify a spectrum shift to the left?

Stopped reading here. This is a presumption that is inaccurate. Obama won and the election wasn't THAT much of a landslide. He ran a far superior campaign. I think that had McCain picked a guy like Jindal as a running mate instead of the immensely polarizing Palin, or had Clinton won the nomination or had Obama not caught lightning in a bottle so well that the republicans were within reach of the whitehouse again.

There is still a significant- not fringe- segment of the population that supported these conservative ideals.

There is a general trend over the years of a move towards the left. There may be some jogs to the right here and there but as a whole over the last 100 years we as a society have steadily inched left. Nothing new here.

[guartz]

you mentioned something about the IMF (conspiracy theory alert! bweeee-ooooh bweee-oooooh) and also said that internal economic policy is not changing, when we're already seeing major industry ownership restructuring (including workers taking controlling shares), not to mention a public that is calling out for accountability (I tried to keep this away from Obama, but he's working on legislation to call in tax havens and there was a recent suit that had a swiss bank paying a settlement for sheltering tax frauds).

I'd figure you'd know this about IMF. Essentially they are the reason some of the poorer countries have such a class disparity between rich and poor. IMF makes huge loans (bribes) to country A, to build infrastructure for western countries, and the only way to pay it back is from selling that countries future labor and more loans. Only people who benefit are the western loansharks and the elite who broker those deals. People refer to this as a neo-liberal policy.

As far as workers taking control of public companies; they are still governed by the same laws and policies that a ceo would be. So the only difference is instead of a few people making key decisions, the workers elect people to make the same exact key decisions. Clever illusion. Ultimately nothing changes.