The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-28-2020, 11:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 01:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, the American right is indeed "pretty much content with sticking to doing things and succeeding it's own way these days." It loves the neo-liberal, trickle-down economics status quo in which they get big tax breaks and are allowed to screw over their customers and workers, and have their prejudices against immigrants and the poor stroked and their fanatical religious "values" lauded. It's all just fine for them. But the rising younger and more diverse people on the left are not satisfied with an economic system that holds them down for no reason. They don't need to be influenced to know they are being screwed, or to know that climate change and gun violence are real issues that need to be dealt with. They are not brainwashed by the false ideologies of the Christian Right, militarism and neo-liberalism. The Left can see the 40-year trend of America downward toward banana republic status on every measurement you can find. They know that adopting an authoritarian system of government led by an unfit, ego-maniacal demagogue is not what America needs.

Dude, right now the liberal side is the side clinging to neo liberal policies and placing road blocks in the way of pro American policies under the guise of racism and so forth.

At times I have opposed both Eric and Classic.  This time I am more with Eric.  His comment referred to a lot of policies.  Classic had the same problem as he did with our recent existing exchange, posting something simple, not talking about specific policies.

What are his real policies?  What does he mean by ‘pro American’?

Now I lump Neo-liberalism with the elites and the division of wealth.  I tend to lean more on Elites and division of wealth language in my posts as the words are more descriptive and simple.  However, if you insist on using the Neo-liberal language, in spite of its being similar to liberal, I am generally with Neo-liberal bashing.

As I see it, the Republican Party has always been for the elites.  The Tea Party, not so much.  That is one place where the Tea Party compares favorably with the Republican Establishment.  They are trying to get rid of the traditional Republican linkage giving the elites as large a balance of wealth advantage as possible.

I would prefer to think that Classic leans that way too, but will not speak for him.  He supposedly favors the common people living on the streets.

But the liberals with their attempts at campaign finance reform, with their attempts at accepting many smaller contributions from individuals rather than large ones for corporations, are more on the anti establishment and anti division of wealth side.  I would side with Eric in saying that the liberal side is more with the people, the Establishment Republicans more with the elites.

I also have my problem with Classic’s ‘American’ label.  As most would use the word, it would mean ‘from America’ or ‘identifies with an American heritage’.  As Classic uses the word, it seems to mean ‘people like me’,  For example, Latinos have a heritage from Central and South America.  That makes them American.  However, this seems not to fit Classic’s usage of the word.

Me, the phrase “all men are created equal’ seems to preclude the word.  You should not be prejudiced towards a person according to race or place of origin.  And yet, Classic’s use of ‘American’ seems to exclude Latinos, seems to be based on race,  seems to be racist.  I would prefer to think Classic has a way of tiptoeing around it.

There are three problems I have been fixated on with some conservatives: racism, a pro elite bias, and a fixation on certain groups of people such as Evangelicals as privileged.  Get rid of those three elements, and I could welcome a conservative slant on politics as part of the normal healthy discourse.

Of the three, I would hope Classic, Eric, myself and most could agree that we should be opposed the oversized influence of the elites, and of the perils of racism.  The influence of the Evangelicals in imposing their religious values on those who do not share their core ethics is more controversial.  Anyone here at the moment willing to advocate for the Evangelicals?

But given that Classic has a tendency to oversimplify, to deal in sides rather than policies, in his readiness to attribute false motives and policies to sides he is not on, it becomes hard to tell where he really stands.

Which pro elite policies are liberals supposedly backing?  Is his definition of ‘American’ really racist?  Does he oppose the three questionable policies of favoring elites, racism, and privilege?

On the emigration issue, I will throw out another possible position.  If we are to fight a War on Drugs, we should offer asylum to those who fight for us in that war.  On the other hand, we should not offer asylum claimed on the grounds of our economy being healthier than that of countries further south.  The process of looking at asylum should be quicker, more humane, and in particular not separate parents from children.  Opposed?