General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThat political pendulum. Will it ever swing back to a true liberal/progressive state?
We've seen the studies (and there are many...here are just a few) that show the physical differences between liberal and conversative thinking/mindsets:
Study suggests American liberals and conservatives think as if from different cultures
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-american-liberals-cultures.html
Compendium of studies here:
http://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818
even this:
Assortative Mating on Ideology Could Operate Through Olfactory Cues
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12133/full
Even conservatives *knowing* that they eschew the facts and rely upon herd mentality and debunked claims in order to keep their base organized does no good. They are cowering in a corner, afraid of facts, afraid of the truth, afraid of losing power.
We've seen our national political ideology sway from left to right every few generations but I'm beginning to wonder if we'll ever see it swing back to the left again, at least in my lifetime.
TheGunslinger
(1,086 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)Closest there was had to be the New Deal, but even then things like institutional racism went unchecked.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)walkingman
(7,620 posts)is much more "right" than the 60's. Living in Texas in those days, it was much more pleasant an experience than today. However, that is speaking as someone that lived in the "Montrose" area of Houston and not in rural or the suburbs. In those days I think most young people were far less materialistic than today? My point is we have a long way to go to even get back to middle in my opinion. Guns, Greed, God, Gays, Inequality, Racism, Family Values are not new issues. They have just been pushed further to the right than in the past.
Will it ever swing back to the left - I think it will but not the same version of liberalism as the past. I doubt it will be in my lifetime (65) but you gotta HOPE so.
calimary
(81,298 posts)Glad you're here! It's really frustrating how effective the campaign to push America wrong-ward was. With the onslaught of the reagan era, AND the louis powell roadmap:
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Money to a large extent controls our politics. We have to find a way to change that or the people with money will continue the policies they prefer--and they aren't progressive policies.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)One is revolution, pointed out above. Not sure if that will lead to anything better, though.
Secondly there is a potential for reform - we've seen it before - trust busting in the progressive era, the New Deal, the Civil Rights acts in the 60s. In each case, of course, you had members of the upper class taking a stand for progressive programs, and being supported by the people. Right now it's hard to see that happening, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. It's just that HRC seems to be our front runner and, with the best will in the world, she's not going to be putting forth much aggressive legislation to deal with either growing inequality or the excesses of Wall Street.
Bryant
Roland99
(53,342 posts)and it will be a loooong time before they reach majority levels of support across the nation. Esp given our M$M's propensity to gloss over things that matter and help the right to continue to demonize the poor and anyone showing empathy for the less fortunate or those lacking in opportunities.
benz380
(534 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Roland99
(53,342 posts)assuming I have 30-40 years left (1-2 generations)
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Kennedy
LBJ
Nixon
Carter
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Obama
Do you not see the incredible extreme swings during that time? What has happened to make you think it's not the way of the future? I believe it's what you get with a two-party system... swing one way, swing back the other... you are getting sleeeepy... very very sleeeepy...
Roland99
(53,342 posts)Clinton was DLC and quite pro-corporate (NAFTA, Gramm-Leech-Bliley) and signed off on DOMA, too.
Obama has been very pro-Wall St and it took him 6 years to realize he needed to be a liberal instead of compromising to the right at every step.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Seems keeping money IN politics is what they all want now.
Bettie
(16,110 posts)But, I have a feeling the system is rigged to the point where even if people do wake up, there's little we can do to change policy, since the world is now fully owned by corporate interests.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)ChosenUnWisely
(588 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)That's what we wanted. So a Democrat with personality was going to get elected in 1992. Unfortunately, the one with personality was Bill Clinton. The rest came across like stuffed shirts. His response to Genifer Flowers contrasted to Hart's response to Donna Rice cemented Bill's nomination.
Similar result in 2008. The country wanted it. Obama ran to the Left of Hillary and took the election. Then came out as the Great Appeaser.
It is happening among the people. But corporate have co-opted the elected officials. They prefer the Republican candidate who champions them, but make sure to embed a pro-corporate who speaks against them in the Democratic fold so they will still maintain control when the people move against them.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Both Texas and Florida are at "risk" of turning blue in the next 15 years. Undo (or redo it by the dems) gerrymandering in those two states and you could see a huge shift is the House. Also the increased urbanization of society will tend to shift things left. And the most significant effect could be to collapse the current GOP structure and allow the Rockefeller/Eisenhower/Third way republicans back in the GOP party (and out of the democratic party).
JHB
(37,160 posts)...and forgetting the amount of pushing it requires.
It doesn't swing all on its own.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)A recent sign of hope is some police officers being held responsible for their beatings of detainees. Another is the lipservice being given to income inequality. Pressure to move leftward will need to be maintained long term.
Ultimately, only time will tell what happens in the future.
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)the day. It will take a major movement to change things.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and the CIA hold the mass media in the unbreakable iron grip in which they now clasp it. Nope.
Johonny
(20,851 posts)In reality you can argue the majority of the population in the country and the world is liberal/progressive. Convincing a voter they are better off voting for a liberal though is harder. Worse the party system is completely broken. There was a time when there were progressive/liberal Republicans. There simply are none these days. So long as one party is completely broken I see no way to effectively run a government. Without an effective government you certainly won't get a progressive state. There have been long spells of terrible federal governments in the past. It certainly could last through all our lifetimes. Could it ever end? Yeah, I mean all it would take is voters turning out and voting. If voters showed up consistently at the polls America would be a much more persistently progressive state.
Response to Roland99 (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)As much as I hate to say it. But people are afraid of liberals. Of course this is much easier to explain with a drawing but I will try to type it.
Mickey Mouse, the moderate Democrat, is challenging Donald Duck, the tea party Republican for an open Congressional seat in an old Blue Dog district. On the political scale (0 being extremely conservative and 100 being extremely liberal), Mickey Mouse is a 65 and Donald Duck is a 5.
You're loyal to your party and actually puts your money where your mouth is. You join the Mickey Mouse campaign on a Saturday in October for a weekend of canvassing. You knock on the door and talk to an independent white male voter in his 40s. In 2008, he was a ticket splitter, voting for Peter Pan (the longtime Blue Dog that was wiped out in 2010) along with John McCain. He didn't want to vote for Obama because he feared losing his guns. He was frustrated with everything in 2010 and stayed home. In 2012, he voted straight GOP but is still an unaffiliated voter and considers himself independent. So you go to his door and he immediately tells you that Mickey Mouse is too liberal (despite Donald Duck being so conservative he almost falls off the chart and Mickey Mouse is barely a liberal). You lose his vote for this perception.
There's more voters like him than people think. In my 6 years of campaigns, I have never once heard a voter tell me that the Republican was too conservative (and I've had some pretty far right opponents). But I've heard way too many times that the Democrat was too liberal.
(Disclaimer-- this is a Blue Dog district we're talking about. It's not a northeast or west coast city).
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Maybe white voters were, and especially white working-class men, who have abandoned the Democratic Party in many areas of the country (especially in the South-which should be a clue as to much of the reasons for that). Certainly, the collapse of labor unions and their decreased support among working-class white men (particularly in the private sector-note that the only growth in unionization rates has been in the public sector) is also a big part of that.
But the United States is getting more diverse in every sense of the word. In 1960, it was far from certain that a white Catholic could be elected President of the United States. Look who the President is 50 years later. We are very likely to have a woman as President soon, and there's been a real sea change among a broad segment of the public on a wide variety of issues from the minimum wage to gay marriage, to the environment, immigration, and issues of war and peace. People are becoming more tolerant of diversity and more likely to recognize the interconnectedness of our society-and the world in general.
The problem isn't America in general, but rather that the "base" (ie: regular voters) of the electorate (and especially the people who participate more in activism and organizing-at all levels of government and other institutions in society) is skewed towards more white, affluent, and overall older people who fondly remember the past and are very pessimistic about the present (let alone the future)-ie the traditionally privileged groups in American society, and therefore, the most conservative overall. They notice the changes-in racial and ethnic demographics, in the economy, in the family and family structure, in the culture, and other changes-and they are fearful of these changes. Hence the support for more conservative (and even reactionary) politicians among a large segment of this demographic.
This is just my perspective, as a young American. I do understand, though, that my perspective would be different if I were of an older generation, so YMMV.
CanonRay
(14,103 posts)brainwashing people.