3 ms·

Left and right are relative terms. While the Democratic Party, WaPo or HuffPost might not seem particularly left-wing relative to, say, Europe, they certainly

Left and right are relative terms. While the Democratic Party, WaPo or HuffPost might not seem particularly left-wing relative to, say, Europe, they certainly are left of center in the US. And what you're calling center-left or actual left-wing is far-left in American terms.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Left and right are relative terms. Not really. I mean, you can use them that way and it has some value for some uses, but you lose a lot of insight particularly into natural strategic rather than tactical political alignment. The left favors the interests of the working class, the right favors the interest of the capitalist class. The “center-” of each does so while still favoring preserving some protection for the distinct interests of the opposing class; there is a natural strategic alignment across the right (and similarly the left), even if there might be a tactical alignment between, say, the left and center-right in a nation with an electoral system favoring duopoly and a somewhat right-leaning political culture.
- leereeves 8y ago
  That line of thought leads to dismissing the experience of working people who are hurt by leftist policies (and know it) and claiming they are voting against their own interests when they vote Republican. But the left made healthcare worse for people who have health insurance. They lower wages for American workers by expanding immigration. They raise taxes to pay for benefits for people who choose not to work. That's not favoring the American working-class.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    Your comment shows the problem with assuming that the Democratic Party == left. It does not, at least not on the economic front, not since FDR, which is why you get the sort of compromise 'centrist' solution that is Obamacare, which actually takes a lot of cues from what were right-wing proposals, (i.e. Romney). The left wants single payer/medicare for all, which polls extremely well, not crappy compromises. There should have been at least a public option, but precisely because Obama was no leftist, he took even that out. Bernie Sanders actually polls well among the working class people you're talking about. P.S. The notion that there is some significant amount of people who 'choose not to work' is... laughable. Life on benefits its not the comfortable sort of life you seem to imagine it being. In fact many people on benefits DO WORK, and they're struggling despite it. You can blame them for working minimum wage jobs, (like everyone can be an entrepreneur), however the real problem might be that the minimum wage has not kept up with the increases in productivity and inflation.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      I'm not imagining anything; I'm speaking from personal knowledge. I grew up in poverty. Poor people aren't a distant mystery to me; they've been my friends, family, classmates, and neighbors most of my life. (Not so much coworkers because I was fortunate to enter the tech industry.) I've known many people who prefer to live on benefits and take pride in their ability to work the system. That life may not seem comfortable by SV standards, but they like it. They have no intention of working hard and earning a more expensive life. Of course, I've also known many poor people who worked hard to improve their lives. People who advanced by going to night school while working full time, or through hard work and loyalty for an employer, or by living simply and investing what money they had. But I rarely see policies that help that kind of person from either party.
      - AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > I've known many people who prefer to live on benefits and take pride in their ability to work the system. Yeah, sure, but there's always going to be people taking advantage of any system. Does that mean no system is worth having? I mean there's a tremendous amount of waste at the Pentagon, for example, yet the right always seems to rather be focusing on punching down, rather than up.
        leereeves 8y ago
        Some systems are worth having. Taxing idle wealth instead of productive work would be a good system. Rewarding work instead of cutting off benefits would be a good system. The system we have helps people who don't work but does little to help poor working people and IMO isn't worth having.
        AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > Taxing idle wealth instead of productive work would be a good system. I actually 100% agree with this. I am pleasantly surprised you support this, since many on the right tend to protest taxing wealth more.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > That line of thought leads to dismissing the experience of working people who are hurt by leftist policies No, it doesn't. First, because It's quite possible to recognize that people fail in what they seek to favor. And, second and more importantly, because it leads to noticing that there's virtually no leftist policy in the US, since the dominant factions for the two parties have for decades been right and center-right. > But the left made healthcare worse for people who have health insurance. No, the left didn't. Aside from the question of whether the ACA made healthcare worse for people have insurance (which is a complicated mixed bag), the ACA didn't come from the left, it came from the center-right faction of the Democratic Party, following an outline earlier used at the state level by Republicans, and which actually was first suggested by a group of Republican politicians and insurance industry figures as a better (from a conservative standpoint) alternative to the (also from the center-right faction of the Democratic Party) Clinton healthcare reform effort in the 1990s. > They lower wages for American workers by expanding immigration. When and how have leftists fine this? > They raise taxes to pay for benefits for people who choose not to work. What are you talking about?
    - leereeves 8y ago
      I'm talking about people who choose not to work. I've known plenty of them, but I've already discussed that in another comment here. I will add that most working class people I know make too much money to qualify for benefits. They already earn more than minimum wage. They make too much to qualify for expanded Medicaid, or grants for college. Also, fifty years ago, working class people made good money in construction. But even thirty years ago, those wages were already depressed by illegal immigrant labor. And when working class people complained, leftist journalists and politicians whose jobs weren't threatened by immigration dismissed those complaints as racism. Most leftists know nothing about the real concerns of working class people.
AsyncAwait 8y ago
I think it's important to make a distinction between social leftism and economic leftism, because on the economic front the outlets you mentioned are squarely center-right. And yes, it is relative, but that just shows you how right-wing the 'center' really is. The Democratic Party in the U.S. is called the Conservative Party in the UK.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Left and right are relative terms. Not really. I mean, you can use them that way and it has some value for some uses, but you lose a lot of insight particularly into natural strategic rather than tactical political alignment. The left favors the interests of the working class, the right favors the interest of the capitalist class. The “center-” of each does so while still favoring preserving some protection for the distinct interests of the opposing class; there is a natural strategic alignment across the right (and similarly the left), even if there might be a tactical alignment between, say, the left and center-right in a nation with an electoral system favoring duopoly and a somewhat right-leaning political culture.

leereeves 8y ago
That line of thought leads to dismissing the experience of working people who are hurt by leftist policies (and know it) and claiming they are voting against their own interests when they vote Republican. But the left made healthcare worse for people who have health insurance. They lower wages for American workers by expanding immigration. They raise taxes to pay for benefits for people who choose not to work. That's not favoring the American working-class.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  Your comment shows the problem with assuming that the Democratic Party == left. It does not, at least not on the economic front, not since FDR, which is why you get the sort of compromise 'centrist' solution that is Obamacare, which actually takes a lot of cues from what were right-wing proposals, (i.e. Romney). The left wants single payer/medicare for all, which polls extremely well, not crappy compromises. There should have been at least a public option, but precisely because Obama was no leftist, he took even that out. Bernie Sanders actually polls well among the working class people you're talking about. P.S. The notion that there is some significant amount of people who 'choose not to work' is... laughable. Life on benefits its not the comfortable sort of life you seem to imagine it being. In fact many people on benefits DO WORK, and they're struggling despite it. You can blame them for working minimum wage jobs, (like everyone can be an entrepreneur), however the real problem might be that the minimum wage has not kept up with the increases in productivity and inflation.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    I'm not imagining anything; I'm speaking from personal knowledge. I grew up in poverty. Poor people aren't a distant mystery to me; they've been my friends, family, classmates, and neighbors most of my life. (Not so much coworkers because I was fortunate to enter the tech industry.) I've known many people who prefer to live on benefits and take pride in their ability to work the system. That life may not seem comfortable by SV standards, but they like it. They have no intention of working hard and earning a more expensive life. Of course, I've also known many poor people who worked hard to improve their lives. People who advanced by going to night school while working full time, or through hard work and loyalty for an employer, or by living simply and investing what money they had. But I rarely see policies that help that kind of person from either party.
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      > I've known many people who prefer to live on benefits and take pride in their ability to work the system. Yeah, sure, but there's always going to be people taking advantage of any system. Does that mean no system is worth having? I mean there's a tremendous amount of waste at the Pentagon, for example, yet the right always seems to rather be focusing on punching down, rather than up.
      - leereeves 8y ago
        Some systems are worth having. Taxing idle wealth instead of productive work would be a good system. Rewarding work instead of cutting off benefits would be a good system. The system we have helps people who don't work but does little to help poor working people and IMO isn't worth having.
        AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > Taxing idle wealth instead of productive work would be a good system. I actually 100% agree with this. I am pleasantly surprised you support this, since many on the right tend to protest taxing wealth more.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > That line of thought leads to dismissing the experience of working people who are hurt by leftist policies No, it doesn't. First, because It's quite possible to recognize that people fail in what they seek to favor. And, second and more importantly, because it leads to noticing that there's virtually no leftist policy in the US, since the dominant factions for the two parties have for decades been right and center-right. > But the left made healthcare worse for people who have health insurance. No, the left didn't. Aside from the question of whether the ACA made healthcare worse for people have insurance (which is a complicated mixed bag), the ACA didn't come from the left, it came from the center-right faction of the Democratic Party, following an outline earlier used at the state level by Republicans, and which actually was first suggested by a group of Republican politicians and insurance industry figures as a better (from a conservative standpoint) alternative to the (also from the center-right faction of the Democratic Party) Clinton healthcare reform effort in the 1990s. > They lower wages for American workers by expanding immigration. When and how have leftists fine this? > They raise taxes to pay for benefits for people who choose not to work. What are you talking about?
  - leereeves 8y ago
    I'm talking about people who choose not to work. I've known plenty of them, but I've already discussed that in another comment here. I will add that most working class people I know make too much money to qualify for benefits. They already earn more than minimum wage. They make too much to qualify for expanded Medicaid, or grants for college. Also, fifty years ago, working class people made good money in construction. But even thirty years ago, those wages were already depressed by illegal immigrant labor. And when working class people complained, leftist journalists and politicians whose jobs weren't threatened by immigration dismissed those complaints as racism. Most leftists know nothing about the real concerns of working class people.

AsyncAwait 8y ago

I think it's important to make a distinction between social leftism and economic leftism, because on the economic front the outlets you mentioned are squarely center-right. And yes, it is relative, but that just shows you how right-wing the 'center' really is. The Democratic Party in the U.S. is called the Conservative Party in the UK.