Best political ideologies books according to redditors
We found 1,622 Reddit comments discussing the best political ideologies books. We ranked the 584 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 1,622 Reddit comments discussing the best political ideologies books. We ranked the 584 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
He's the guy that wrote This (warning: amazon link, open in private browsing so it doesn't effect recommendations) book about how democrats are the real nazis. So you know this guy is grounded in reality.
Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening.
This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY
Science on reasoning, reason doesn't work the way we thought it did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Brezinski at a press conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY
The real news:
http://therealnews.com/t2/
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/r
http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/
Look at the following graphs:
IMGUR link - http://imgur.com/a/FShfb
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Actual_estimated_ideal_wealth_distribution.gif
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Net_worth_and_financial_wealth.gif
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
And then...
WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap
http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnkNKipiiiM
Free markets?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349
http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568586132/
"We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.
In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."
Important history:
http://williamblum.org/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcA1v2n7WW4
It's a fake cover
>What the actual fuck is wrong with politicians.
You're slowly becoming aware of how corrupt and fucked up the world really is... You're not seeing what's going on behind the scenes... they fear the net and hence want to lock everything down.
The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY
Brezinski at a press conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g
Snowden on terrorism/spying.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/sep/25/edward-snowden-treaty-glenn-greenwald-mass-surveillance-terrorism-video
Democracy Inc.
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/
Intereference in other states when the corporations dont get their way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&feature=youtu.be&list=PLKR2GeygdHomOZeVKx3P0fqH58T3VghOj&t=724
From war is a racket:
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]
"War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]
"The general public shoulders the bill [for war]. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." [p. 24]
General Butler is especially trenchant when he looks at post-war casualties. He writes with great emotion about the thousands of tramautized soldiers, many of who lose their minds and are penned like animals until they die, and he notes that in his time, returning veterans are three times more likely to die prematurely than those who stayed home.
http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/
Same way they made the word “Liberal” a pejorative term.
This book by George Lakoff outlines just how Republicans have hijacked the political discourse in this country and explains how to undo the bunk framing and take it back to reality. Quick and fascinating read. Check it out.
> Conservatives tend to value hierarchy
They don't just value it — hierarchy is the common factor between all conservative movements since the French Revolution.
Read the Reactionary Mind. The author goes through hundreds of years of conservatism, comparing & contrasting different movements. Many of them wouldn't get along, especially in terms of economics, social politics, governance, etc. And yet they all agree on one thing:
> Hierarchy is the natural state of society.
Now, exactly who is on top, and why they're up there... well, the different movements would argue about that too.
EDIT: clarification, thanks to u/RicketyFrigate
The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left
Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party
Allow me to pitch a related book with a somewhat different angle on the..topic:
How Nonviolence Protects the State, By Peter Gelderloos
Despite the title it is the most rational discussion on "violence" that I have ever seen, going into great detail on how often the cries for pacifism within various politcal movements are at the very least hypocritical if not downright dangerous to the lives of many people.
(Gelderloos was heavily involved in the movement attempting to shut down the School Of The Americas, a training facility for south american "allies" that specialized in torture)
It goes into great detail on some of the political whitewashing in the last few centuries, in particular regarding MLK and Gandhi.
Its a well sourced booklet and ive yet to read a coherent rebuttal of the claims Gelderloos makes(oh have I looked)
edit:
here it is, for FREE:-D yay anarcho-something!
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state
Someone's basically already done that.
He sold a book entitled "why socialism works" and every page just reads "it doesn't". Check out the triggered customer reviews.
Here's the link to the book if anyone is interested.
He wrote a whole book (or, well, a collection of essays and other stuff chronicling his lifelong anarchy support): http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208
He's one of the most well known anarchist thinkers.
I see you have never owned the libs by selling a book on Amazon called "Why Socialism Works" that actually only has the words "It doesn't" on every page
No, there isn't. The stated strategy of the house Republicans from the day Obama was elected was to not compromise and try to thwart the new administration.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html
No amount of wineing and dining was going to get the House Republicans to deal.
Look at the book "Its even worse than it looks" by Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann. Goes thru in detail how every negotiation was blown up by the younger house leaders for political gain, not for the good of the country.
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
No. The situation right now is something of a repeat of the worst excesses of the Nixon administration, yet for a lot of people paying attention to politics now they never lived through the Nixon scandals. This, along with a series of long-term trends, combine to make a 'new normal' that I don't think a lot of people understand.
I'm not sure how far back to go with this but I'll start with the ultra partisanship that exploded around Obama's time in office. Mann and Ornstein had been warning for years that political extremism was starting to harm good governance, and we saw quite a bit of evidence in that with the no holds barred, scorched earth policy of Newt Gingrich's new GOP in the '90s, which forswear any compromise. This by itself was not really an issue until the American electorate turned more and more partisan over the 2000s, and most especially during the Tea Party movement under Obama. The displacement of traditionally conservative or otherwise 'moderate' Republicans by Tea Partiers happened in a wave that unseated, most ironically, Eric Cantor...yet Cantor, Ryan, and Marco Rubio themselves emboldened the Tea Party out of the realization that this clearly partisan movement could get them votes. So Cantor then losing to a Tea Partier (David Brat) for being a 'RINO' probably should have been the first warning sign that things were getting out of control (Anybody listening to conservative AM radio around tea party time knows what I'm talking about).
Despite what excuses people may make for the government shutdown during Obama's term and certain obstructionist efforts, they still had a deleterious effect on Congressmen and Senators solely because they proved that a partisan position for the sake of appearing extreme could actually enhance one's standing with the electorate. The GOP waves during the Obama administration and into state-level elections was largely the result of simply radicalizing the base against Obama and the Democrats. In turn, Democrats turned more partisan as well. This would itself not have been an issue until Trump was elected, and has thoroughly ruined political discourse in the country by completely dividing Americans into 'loyalists' versus 'The Enemy.' The issue is getting exacerbated, not cured, mostly because the system has changed to favor extremist pandering and none of the political compromise that is actually necessary for good governance or confidence in political institutions. Consider the divide in media consumption based on one's political preference. Probably the most striking part of America society and its politics is how absolutely delusional each side is about one another. There's little to no understanding about how the other end feels. Coming out of a Democrat administration, the right-wing forces that propelled Trump (Breitbart, internet personalities, Bannon, Yiannopoulos) were especially bad (YET EFFECTIVE, can't deny that) about portraying a cartoonish idea about 'the Left' and perpetuating cultural grievances/race-baiting. The polarization has gotten so bad that the most radical, poisonous elements of the right-wing spectrum are not being sufficiently recognized by those who just consider themselves Trump supporters or typical Republicans. To illustrate this, consider the tragedy at Charlottesville, where the endless feedback loop of cultural grievance and moral relativism led to a murderer's mother not even being aware her son was in a white supremacist organization versus a regular Trump rally. The more extreme organizations are always seeking normalization, and there's pretty good evidence they're going to get somewhere under this administration if things don't change soon.
The shoe could well be on the other foot come next election. But this is the new normal. It's less likely Trump's man-child antics disappear and get replaced by someone more presidential, and more likely someone savvy to 'the game' like Senator Tom Cotton will step in to replace him. The Trump administration is a whole new level of incompetence compared to past administrations, but this itself is not really noteworthy if it wasn't coupled with the extreme polarization of the electorate, making endless excuses for it. The scandals of the Trump administration have been normalized by one side and absolutely outrage the other, even though under any other administration there would be far more diligence and scrutiny over such issues by the majority of Americans and the media, not just one side. My particular specialty is in foreign policy. I won't go into details but the near-comic bumbling of Trump officials when it comes to dealing with other countries and their envoys is already legendary. Virtually nobody else would make these mistakes. Yet the American public is divided on a sports-team-esque basis, and thus simple questions like 'Should someone like Tom Price have ever been approved for his job?' go ignored in favor of cheerleading.
So, no, this isn't normal. The politicization of the Special Counsel, by its nature Independent, out of fear it will cost one party votes or face should never be considered normal. But it's going to be. This is not some aberration in American history: this is just how it's going to be. For a while, at least. Likely through the next administration, too.
Hope this helps!
Also read Mann and Ornstein's It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism to understand why 'our political dysfunction is largely because of the transformation of the Republican Party into an extremist force that is “dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”'
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
Check out "The Reactionary Mind" by Corey Robin. All this hate and lawlessness are completely in line with conservatism throughout history. They will stop at nothing to preserve their status in the hierarchy. https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-Burke/dp/0199959110
I don't have any off the top of my head, but I own (have yet to do any substantial reading of) a book called Fight Club Politics that goes back to pre-Lewinsky era Gingrich and talks about how this poison has been seeping through Congress for a long time. There's also a similar book called It's Even Worse Than It Looks which I haven't read, but I'm lead to understand (by reviews and, among other things, the title) that despite the American electorate believing collectively that on some level all of this is just political theater, that this is actually really really bad partisanship.
Those might not be exactly what you're looking for, but they're surely in the right vein. The other thing when it comes to Obama to remember is that he's black. I'm not saying that everyone who opposes him is an old-fashioned, biological racist. Many are what's referred to sometimes in microaggression theory as "symbolic" racists (whereas when conservatives accuse liberals of being "the real racists" they're accusing them of being "aversive" racists. It's a different thing).
When Obama got elected, he ran on a platform of "hope and change". I think this scared a lot of white people, because for white people, they don't need much hope and they don't want change because things have been going pretty well for them. If you don't recall (I'm not sure how old you are), the rhetoric coming from the right was not far off the shaking in the boots that we're seeing Linsey Graham doing now over ISIS. Obama was going to come for your guns, and then give all your money to the (lazy) black people, and that's based on socialism. Etc. etc. etc... Worse, socialism takes away FREEDOM and, in modern practices has involved DICTATORS, which is likely how people came to a lot of these crazy conclusions.
I'm not sure exactly where in the last 25 or so years--I'm sure it talks about in the books that I mentioned--the word liberal became this weird pejorative. It's funny to me, because I'm a dyed-in-the-wool lefty so I'm proud to call myself liberal and progressive, but whenever someone starts saying "The liberals" or better yet "those libs", I know they're about to spout some baller-level ignorance. My point is, somehow liberals became un-American to the true patriots.
In fact, watch Jon Stewart's clip from last week ripping Fox News for the latte-salute while followed immediately by the awful boobs-on-the-ground joke. "Fuck your false patriotism" he says. It's pretty powerful, and he doesn't pull any punches.
So yeah, I'm sure someone has done better research on it than me, but combine all those toxic elements and you've got the people convinced that Obama is the Antchrist.
I do think you're romanticizing and overestimating the extent to which other countries have a coherent 'natural' ingrained ethnic/national identity by so rashly describing
> Nowhere else in the world is your identity conferred through bureaucracy
I mean, read a book like The Discovery of France that talks about the mapping of France and construction of the French national identity by the government. Up to WWI, the majority of the population wasn't even fluent in French, all the little villages had their own dialects. Spain still has smoldering independence movements and unique languages besides Spanish, from in Catalonia to the Basque region. Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson is another great book that talks more broadly about the beginnings of the concept of nationhood, tying it in Europe to the rise of the printing press which enabled a national language for the first time.
And you mention India, which probably wouldn't even be a unified country if it weren't for the conquest under the British empire and subsequent independence. India is culturally and ethnically divided in the extreme, up to and including their caste system.
Not to mention the great success and relative stability of very divided multi-ethnic societies in countries such as Switzerland or Singapore in the first world. Many of these peoples have a longer shared history than the ethnic groups in the United States do, but I don't see why that makes a huge difference in terms of the strength of identity. In either case, the memory of that shared history has to be constructed anew for each generation. Our shared history up to this point is more than enough to serve as a basis to construct national identity on; these days few Italians or Irish descendants of immigrants have any other primary identity than 'American'. Imagining a shared national community such that it is a primary identity isn't easy but the American government has played a large part with mandatory public schools and other measures. Bureaucracy is a large part of forging national identity, no doubt, your mistake is thinking that this is isolated to America.
So your description of America as
> not a serious country
on these grounds says more about your unique antagonism to it than anything else. If America is particularly notable on these grounds it is that as a relatively young nation compared to many of these older countries, our national identity ambiguities and contradictions stand out more. You're doing a negative version of American exceptionalism, which I think is just as incorrect.
For all those on the left I have the "Perfect" book for you, it's #1 in the Political Ideologies section of Amazon! Why Socialism Works
There are so many:
Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy
The Man Who Sold the World: Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America
Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?
The Ronald Reagan Myth
The Lou Cannon book is recognized as the most thorough and scholarly:
President Reagan: The Role Of A Lifetime
From now on, we should sticky this at the top of all these threads.
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550437
> we really need to get to the bottom of whatever pathology is causing this
The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin
> Tracing conservatism back to its roots in the reaction against the French Revolution, Robin argues that the right is fundamentally inspired by a hostility to emancipating the lower orders. Some conservatives endorse the free market, others oppose it. Some criticize the state, others celebrate it. Underlying these differences is the impulse to defend power and privilege against movements demanding freedom and equality. Despite their opposition to these movements, conservatives favor a dynamic conception of politics and society--one that involves self-transformation, violence, and war. They are also highly adaptive to new challenges and circumstances. This partiality to violence and capacity for reinvention has been critical to their success.
>
> Written by a keen, highly regarded observer of the contemporary political scene, The Reactionary Mind ranges widely, from Edmund Burke to Antonin Scalia, from John C. Calhoun to Ayn Rand. It advances the notion that all rightwing ideologies, from the eighteenth century through today, are historical improvisations on a theme: the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.
You should check out this book: How Nonviolence Protects the State
it's a polarizing book, but an insightful and thought-provoking one at that.
The person who wrote the story is Thomas Frank, but this is not the same Thomas Frank who wrote, What's the Matter with Kansas and Listen, Liberal. The latter wrote a harsh criticism of the Democratic establishment in his latest book, but the former is a corporate tool for CNN (or perhaps a former corporate tool since he has now resigned).
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
I think it's more like a neoconservative sub in the sense that neoconservatism, when it's really effective, is to present right-wing or far-right positions as the true "left" position. A lot of the people there would've been big Christopher Hitchens fans during the Iraq War and so on, and they do still think very highly of him. I've also seen the "Euston Manifesto" get shared around there which is an old neocon document from the mid-2000s. Basically the argument was that the parts of the left that opposed the war had betrayed its principles and fallen into "moral relativism" and all these right-wing tropes. Today this kind of tendency also rewords the main right-wing positions of the time (cracking immigrants over the head with clubs, transphobia, etc.) as left-wing positions.
If anyone here is British they might be familiar with Nick Cohen. It's like "I'm on the left guys really but why is the left apologizing for MILITANT ISLAM???" Stupidpol is Nick Cohen-esque:
https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Left-How-Lost-its/dp/0007229704
We've got a problem in our country. A deep-seated one and one that won't go away when Trump exits the public stage- whether that's 8 years, 4 years, or 2 months. Those people will still be here. Radicalized by a demagogue. And looking for "revenge" against the nonwhites who they've been propagandized to believe are the roots of all their problems. And deeply unhinged. They saw what power they had. I'm watching Trumped-a documentary that revisits the utter craziness of the 2016 presidential election- a stirring reminder of just how far Trump crossed the line in vulgarity, how comically inept he was at the debates, etc. and yet they willed him into office.
Sometimes it seems that a demagogue has gotten so into the heads of his followers, that they are so far gone in terms of what they're tolerate and what they'll believe (ie: conspiracy theories) that ordinary people are at a loss for how to even talk to such people. (let's not forget Voltaire's quote “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”)
Whites have always been a proud people and with the right agitation, history shows it doesn't take much before their violent instincts get the best of them. We shouldn't go to sleep on this tendency of theirs.
And it's not some mentality that is restricted to the low-class mouthbreathers; there are people like Michael Flynn (national security advisor to the White House) and Steve Bannon (chief strategist - White House) who are not 'garden-variety conservatives'. They are also believers in the creed of supremacy and have this notion that white self-restraint in the past has harmed America (which they say publicly) and has harmed "goodhearted American people" (white people) which they are more coy about but believe just as much. (these concepts of white 'self-restraint' and 'victimization' are largely fiction, but they are foundational to their worldview; it justifies their outlook which paints a dark picture of nonwhites- their being problems and threats). I strongly advise people read George Lakoff and how he talks about "framing"; his book "Don't Think of an Elephant" is a short read but a terrific primer on linguistics in politics; summarizing here: Once you use language that convinces your audience that Person X or Group Y is villainous, you can attack them with impunity; the crowd will be indifferent of even supportive. No one will object to your 'defending' them from an aggressor.).
What this re-emergent white supremacist movement's rank& file and leadership both share is a 'persecution complex'. People are very dangerous when they have this perception. They will do things in this mode that they wouldn't ordinarily do if they viewed things like geopolitics in an objective way. It's not a sober evaluation of cause and effect; they see it as Action or Death. Once they whip themselves into this frenzy, where they completely distort reality, flip it on its head, and in their newly constructed funhouse-mirror of the world- nonwhites are 'taking advantage' of whites who are now the Victim- seemingly nothing is off the table in terms of "self-defense". A victim sees himself as willing to use "whatever means are necessary" to stop the "abuse". Trump and Co. have used precisely this language with regards to Mexico and China. Trump has said China is "raping" the US. This is not the language of a statesman; it's the language of someone who wants to sway the people into giving him maximum flexibility to "retaliate". And when it happens, as is our practice, unilateral aggression will be packaged as "self-defense".
Yes, agreed, everyone should. But most won't. And many who do read it either fail to understand it and/or refuse to believe it because they are more comfortable with the fantasy that America is some sort of great, leading Democracy. The cognitive dissonance is simply too much for many Americans. A very false sense of American exceptionalism tends to win out. If you notice, Wikipedia is even considering doing away with the individual Inverted Totalitarianism page.
Anyway, here are more links for those interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nelGtSOimwQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=AV_c1ElZl7Q
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/ref=tmm_pap_title_0/180-0382729-1464265
http://www.alternet.org/news/85728/
Manufacturing consent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM
https://vimeo.com/39566117
Testing theories of representative government
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Democracy Inc
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
US distribution of wealth
https://imgur.com/a/FShfb
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
>Is there any politician out there willing to fight for Canadians? Is that too much to ask?
Sorry to tell you the government doesn't work for you.
These links will take a while to digest, but if you want to understand what's going on in the world, you owe it to yourself to become informed about the true state of the world.
Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Rd wolf on economics
http://www.rdwolff.com/
"Intended as an internal document. Good reading to understand the nature of rich democracies and the fact that the common people are not allowed to play a role."
Crisis of democracy
http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis_of_democracy.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Democracy-Governability-Democracies-Trilateral/dp/0814713653/
Education as ignorance
https://chomsky.info/warfare02/
Overthrowing other peoples governments
http://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list
Wikileaks on TTIP/TPP/ETC
https://youtu.be/ABDiHspTJww?t=17
Energy subsidies
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm
Interference in other states when the rich/corporations dont get their way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo&feature=youtu.be&list=PLKR2GeygdHomOZeVKx3P0fqH58T3VghOj&t=724
Manufacturing consent (book)
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349
Manufacturing consent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM
https://vimeo.com/39566117
Testing theories of representative government
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Democracy Inc
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed- Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
From war is a racket:
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]
"War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]
"The general public shoulders the bill [for war]. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." [p. 24]
General Butler is especially trenchant when he looks at post-war casualties. He writes with great emotion about the thousands of tramautized soldiers, many of who lose their minds and are penned like animals until they die, and he notes that in his time, returning veterans are three times more likely to die prematurely than those who stayed home.
http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/
Blum:
http://williamblum.org/aer/read/137
US distribution of wealth
https://imgur.com/a/FShfb
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The Centre for Investigative Journalism
http://www.tcij.org/
Some history on US imperialism by us corporations.
https://kurukshetra1.wordpress.com/2015/09/27/a-brief-history-of-imperialism-and-state-violence-in-colombia/
The real news
http://www.therealnews.com
To be fair, he's hardly the only one.
In 1969 someone wrote a book called The Emerging Republican Majority that correctly predicted coming Republican dominance due to demographic changes. And the book was quite right when you look at presidential contests. From 1968 to 1988 Republicans won 5 out of 6 presidential elections. And the 1 they lost (Carter, 1976) they only narrowly lost.
In 2004 someone wrote a book called The Emerging Democratic Majority, making much the same prediction based on demographic changes. Sure Bush later won reelection that year, but the exit poll numbers only reinforced the author's point about how the GOP was losing in growing demographic groups, and hence likely to struggle more at winning elections.
These kinds of demographic changes DO NOT mean it's impossible for one party to win the white house however. Only that until demographics or voting behavior starts changing significantly that one party will struggle more at winning national elections.
To say that demographics mean Democrats will control the government for the next 4 or however many decades goes too far.
The lie started taking over the party when this book was published. After 2004 they more-or-less gave up reaching out to the white working class in favor of trying to turn growing minority communities (Muslims, Latinos) into another captive Democrat voting bloc like the black community.
The two books Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer and Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? by Thomas Frank pair extremely well and are required reading for anyone that wishes to understand how US politics has been shifted so far to the right these past decades. Dark Money, while extremely informative regarding the propaganda of billionaires, largely gives a pass to the Democratic party which Listen, Liberal reveals as being undeserved.
Are any of these claims...wrong?
For example, take:
> Anti-conservative sentence of the oped: " the reality of American politics is asymmetric polarization: extremism on the right is a powerful political force, while extremism on the left isn’t." Hmm.
This isn't a hot take from Krugman. It's conventional wisdom in political science. See https://voteviewblog.com/2015/06/10/more-on-assymmetric-polarization-yes-the-republicans-did-it/ or https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
> FUCK TRUMP
There's a book that was just released, written just for you! Check it out on amazon!
Sounds like you've read Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism. The author Sheldon Wolin makes the point that the Democrats have failed as an opposition party and have become complicit in the neutering of the federal government. The book is an excellent read and eye-opening as well.
Wait, you accuse the left of calling everyone they don't like Nazis? Seriously? Conservative call liberals Nazis way more often. The biggest conservative movie last year was all about how the Nazis were left wing. It was written by Dinesh D'Souza and entitled "The Big Lie". If you're such a smarty pants truth teller, why didn't you know about this movie that tens of millions of conservatives watched? Why didn't you know about Dinesh and all the times Fox News has said the Nazis were liberals? Fox News was even going to recently run a special saying the Nazis were left wing. Because, you know, Hitler hated the white privilege and patriarchy.
​
And you're exactly right (the book by Sheldon Wolin is great, incidentally). No meaningful form of political democracy can survive in a society with a capitalist economic substructure. Capitalism inevitably creates a ruling class of wealth that puts itself far above the people in both legal and social status by subverting whatever form of government might exist. If we want egalitarianism and democracy to exist in the future, we must completely transform our economic system into some form of socialism, for which the capitalist ruling class's power base of private capital ownership does not exist.
The book that the term is coined from.
A Chris Hedges lecture where he discusses the term.
Pacifism as Pathology by Ward Churchill
How Non-Violence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos - PDF
Deacons For Defense are one of several groups of armed black Americans during the civil rights movement.
Orgasms of History
from riot to insurrection more of the theoretical side than history
See also: general strikes and the riots that accompanied them. The history of the labor movement, which is full of strikes that became riots. The timeline of the civil rights movement, in that it was only after the riots began that meaningful civil rights legislation began to be adopted, and even MLK knew that the only reason they were giving him a seat at the table after calling him a communist etc... was because of the riots forcing them to deal with the non-violent moderates of the movement and make concessions.
This is a bit of a personal conspiracy theory, but may be related to the degree that Russia interferes with Latvia:
I have Latvian friend who speaks glowingly of Latvian mythology and culture, and out of curiosity I browsed to the Latvian mythology Wikipedia page following a chat with her. I read through it, and was struck by how much it focused on the idea that Latvia's national myths are a very recent phenomena. Like, I'm somewhat familiar with the work of Benedict Anderson, but this was a Wikipedia page with a tone that was just out of keeping with what I usually come across.
I have the oddest suspicion that the page has been edited by pro-Russian agents.
I'm not exactly sure what your view to change here is, but I'll take a stab at your causality by inserting a step before the "the sides don't understand each other so they fight against and demonize straw men," point.
This may CMV - it may not - but the problem isn't ignorance of the other side so much as each side is driving it's own narrative that is intentionally wrong. To borrow from Ronald Reagan, "The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." Reagan was talking about the left, of course, but you could just as easily levy the same attack against the right.
So... it's not ignorance of the other side that's the problem, it's rather a false understanding of the other side in the worst possible terms. It's not accidental; it's intentional.
And it's the inevitable consequence of the application of post-modernism to the political system. This is laid out wonderfully in "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff. This book, which has been essential in shaping left-leaning politics for about 20 years now is all about framing and context. The central thesis is that Truth (with a capitol T) doesn't exist and that truth is whatever people think it is. Therefore, the left must re-frame the debate to it's own ends, developing it's own metrics of success and failure and (this is key) never accepting the right on it's own rhetorical ground. The right is also building on it's own framing paradigms, such that and the end of the day, the left and the right can talk about the same basic issues without actually talking about the same thing at all.
You see this in campaigns where each campaign seeks to "define their opponent" on their own ground rather than to let their opposition define themselves and meeting on that ground.
In summation, I think your point is correct, in as far as it accurately describes the situation, but I think what you describe is a symptom rather than a cause and that the cause is political sophistry designed to prevent the left and the right from finding common ground.
That is an excellent question. I think it requires diligence, pointing out the lie each and every time you hear it, and being fearless in doing so. The liar will profess instant indignation and threaten legal action, so courage is required.
Being careful of what is being said is also important. "Tax relief", for example, is a loaded term, making taxes sound like a sort of punishment, when in reality they are the necessary fees that keep society running, like the membership fees of a gym. You pay your fees, you get something useful in return, like a stable society.
George Lakoff called this "framing the debate" and wrote an interesting book called Don't Think of an Elephant! about this.
I know this sounds hard to believe but I made $69/hour in my spare time just working at home! To visit this website click here or copy this URL into your web browser: http://xxxbotjobs.com/gamereddit
It was that easy I racked up $450 in 3 days just spending time online! I love this site it made it all possible! To visit this website click here or copy this URL into your web browser: http://xxxbotjobs.com/gamereddit
It is totally recession-proof, and read this news article from a reputable source about how this awesome Fortune 500 company is not a scam! To visit this website click here or copy this URL into your web browser: http://xxxbotjobs.com/gamereddit
lol. no way I could do it justice... thanks!
I like bobswern's comment where he politely suggests kos take a sabbatical and give all this some more thought. Im tempted to pile on and tell markos to log off DKOS, turn off MSNBC for a week or two and go read a few good books. Go hole up or have a few drinks with Meteor Blades maybe, heh.
start with this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
Im sure we collectively could come up with a pretty good reading list for him lol
Fukuyama vs Huntington.
This one actually exists.
At risk of copyright infringement, I will print here the entire text of the book here.
>It doesn't.
No one else has mentioned it. "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff talked greatly about how James Dobson and Focus on the Family moved Evangelical Christianity into a wealth=moral fortitude type of mentality. The idea that God only allows the people who are upright Christians to be successful and wealthy is one they capitalized upon and were able to use that value-speak to cause a lot of people who often voted with the Democrats (particularly the blue-collar labor class in the South and Midwest) to side with the Republicans.
You should read this -
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717
words matter.
Ah, the ol' conservative tactic of accusing others of the thing that they're guilty of.
The Reactionary Mind has more examples from the past 300 years
>It takes leadership and compromise to overcome differences in politics. Republicans are representing their constituents as well as the Democrat elected are doing the same.
>Get over it guys, this is normal. This is politics, this is the american way. Like it or leave it.
Actually, the filibuster has been used more during Obama's term than ever before. It is worse than it used to be.
I often beat the drum for Sheldon Wolin, as I found his book on our current political system illuminating. The Amazon description of the book explains it better than I can. http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
I recently saw the Progressive writer and commentator Thomas Frank on C-SPAN's BookTV, where he was launching his latest book Listen Liberal. This one is a history of why the Democratic Party turned its back on the US working class and how it has become a second (and maybe, no longer just the spare) tool for financial interests. He ended his formal presentation with this alarming comment about the upcoming Presidential election. Choosing Trump is voting for 'Intolerance'; Choosing Clinton is a vote for 'Inequality', presumably to be perpetually increasing.
The books written by people such as Dinesh D'Souza have very high ratings compared to what I would expect.
I mean I know that doesn't mean 1 star reviews are deleted, but his book about how "the left" is somehow connected to the Nazi Party, has 4.5 stars and 300 something reviews.
haha, instead of asking us, read what he was to say on anarchism
Don't Think of an Elephant is by a cognitive scientist and psycholinguist named George Lakoff. Whether or not you agree with his politics, I've found it incredibly useful to know how to bait audiences into making assumptions.
The general thesis is that people organize their concepts into "frames," or categories that help us make sense of complicated ideas. But many of these ideas can exist in more than one frame, so when people evoke a specific frame instead of another, they can subtly guide your thinking by introducing a new semantic context and perspective.
So much of Act One requires the audience to simultaneously 1) know that the protagonist has a flaw, 2) secretly agree with the misguided belief behind that protagonist's flaw, 3) not know how to defeat that belief, and 4) be enticed into learning how to defeat the wrong belief. Though #1 an #2 seem mutually exclusive, knowing how to lure audiences into adopting incorrect frames can allow you to highlight cognitive dissonance in the audience, which you then correct over the course of the protagonist's adventure.
Further, knowing when leaders or organizations are trying to manipulate you into accepting incorrect frames can be a big indicator that other people are being misled also. So you can be "Mr. prescient hot-button writer guy" when you write a movie about the issue that "says all the things I was thinking, but didn't quite know how to say."
You might be interested in a short read called "Don't Think of an Elephant". The author is a linguist and he looks at how Republicans manipulate language as a means to an end. He addresses your question to some extent.
The two books i've read are The Political Mind and Don't Think of an Elephant. He is a congitive linguist who wrote a lot about metaphor and framing, and how the Right has effectively framed every major issue in their own terms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff
His ideas aren't radical or world changing, but the Dems really shun him (i think over some personal spats... like, he disagreed with Rahm Emmanuel once (a plus in my book) and also with Steven Pinker (more plus), so they don't like him). Not that if they listened to him they'd win all elections, but maybe they'd do a little better?
I'm interested in him because, so far as i've read, his explanation for why Republicans voters vote for Republicans is the only one that makes sense. "Why do they vote against their interests" leaves out that they are voting for their values, even when those values are against their interests.
But, i dunno, maybe he's way off base and that's why no one listens to him. Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts.
He basically makes his money from critiquing the left. He wrote this book back in 2007 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Whats-Left-Lost-Liberals-Their/dp/0007229704
Literally "what happened to the left", and hes been cashing those "i don't like the left" checks for like 10 years at this point.
That said, hes not wrong, corbyn needs to go
I've been doing a lot of reading trying to figure out this election and why the heck we are so divided as a county:
https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Resentment-Consciousness-Wisconsin-American/dp/022634911X
https://www.amazon.com/Complacent-Class-Self-Defeating-Quest-American/dp/1250108691
https://www.amazon.com/Glass-House-Economy-Shattering-All-American/dp/1250085802
https://www.amazon.com/Colony-Nation-Chris-Hayes/dp/0393254224
https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Twenty-Lessons-Twentieth-Century/dp/0804190119
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777
The book that originated the theory.
This should be mandatory reading for any aspiring political analyst. Too many people read the book and concluded that since demographics would allow democrats to win no matter what, they could abandon the center and push whatever the base wanted without consequence. Trump unfortunately is the consequence of not reading the book more closely.
Just order off of Amazon. Here's a good book. Why Socialism Works https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521531218/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_3VKYAbCJQKFAK
Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy
For those curious: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218
An important book everyone thinking about joining these groups should read: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218
Under the book cover there is a "Listen".
It's mostly just him ranting about the left and how silly they are for having triggered words and how awesome Trump is.
https://www.amazon.com/Triggered-Left-Thrives-Wants-Silence/dp/154608603X
Kamala Harris let fucking Steve Mnuchin go when there was a mountain of evidence that he was a corporate criminal. Harris was also the only Democrat to receive a campaign contribution from Mnuchin and his criminal enterprise One West Bank. Now that crook is Trump's treasury secretary.
Get the Book "Listen Liberal" by Thomas Frank. He lists the crimes of the Clintons and Obama in detail and Frank is a well know liberal himself. It may open your eyes.
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
Uberto Eco's Ur-Fascism is a popular piece on fascism if you haven't read it already.
With regard to nationalism, Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities is a major book on the subject and has often been translated into new languages because of the threat of rising nationalism there as was the case with it's Hebrew translation.
Others might be able to give some more suggestions.
He wrote a book called On Anarchism:
http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208
Which I read and can confirm: he's an anarchist. Not marxist collectivist statist at all.
Actually George Lakoff is not praising them for doing this at all! He founded a progressive think tank to try and COUTNER this framing, and wrote a book about it called Don't Think Like an Elephant (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1931498717/103-8161085-8388602?v=glance&n=283155)
>Unless you can qualify this statement with an actual source of information it is only an opinion.
I did mention that there's an entire book of source. Don't bother with the Amazon reviews, just read it. Get it out of the library if you don't want to pay money.
Maajid on Twitter today acknowledged that, although he coined the term, Nick Cohen was really the grandfather of the concept. He published a book on the subject in 2007 called What's Left.
There's a great book by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein that explains a lot of the problems we face today in terms of partisanship. There are a few factors that caused both parties, but especially the republicans, to move to the extremes starting in the 1970's. They include:
The "Reagan Revolution" which brought social and religious conservatives together with fiscal conservatives.
Newt Gingrich, who encouraged GOP Congress members to avoid talking with Democrats or face severe repercussions. He later led the 1994 Contract with America.
The election of Barack Obama, who the conservative movement hates for a variety of reasons. Politicians are feeding off that hate.
Money in politics has made Republicans at the whim of major corporations, which paralyzes progress.
That's my response for the moment. I'll upvote and mention anyone who has something better.
EDIT: formatting and grammar
It's even worse than it looks By Tomas Mann and Norman Ornstien is all about Republican obstructionism and how polarized our political system has become. There's plenty of evidence and specific examples in there, especially the first chapter.
He was behind this in the early 2000s when he thought that the Left was becoming toxic, especially after Iraq.
http://eustonmanifesto.org/the-euston-manifesto/
Essentially a manifesto that says universal values should be upheld instead of relative oppressor/victim politics and the politics of anti-imperialism.
He also wrote the book 'What's left'.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Whats-Left-Lost-Liberals-Their/dp/0007229704
This book was a critique of modern double standards in leftists which excuse Islamists, horrible dictatorships and other nasties in the name of anti-imperialism. His principle is that someone like Putin should be opposed, and not supported because he is an enemy of the USA. Same with people like Chavez, Iran, Hamas, Hesbollah and so on.
A few months ago he made a 2 minute video in a spectator column on why he 'left the left'. Critizing Corbyn, though mostly his politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQQw5T2T94M
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/why-ive-finally-given-up-on-the-left/
> It always sets off alarm bells to see Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, Prof. Weinstein, and Hirsi Ali get lumped in with conservatives - even though all of these people are liberal, and most are very liberal.
Conservatism by definition is the defense of hierarchy against leftist movements. The main political split in Western societies is between those who think hierarchical domination should be minimized or abolished, and those who believe it is natural, inevitable, and glorious. If they are defending an ethnic, gendered, or economic hierarchy of any kind, then they are doing conservative politics.
Book link:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0553447556/ref=cm_cr_ryp_prd_ttl_sol_0
Shitreviewing
They have an incentive to. It seems to be working.
Also, this passage, I'm told, got a standing ovation at the end of it:
> But now we are being tested again by a new wave of immigration larger than any in a century, far more diverse than any in our history. Each year, nearly a million people come legally to America. Today, nearly one in 10 people in America was born in another country; one in 5 schoolchildren are from immigrant families. Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within 5 years, there will be no majority race in our largest State, California. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States.
For younger folks interested in politics, I highly recommend the book, Tear Down This Myth by Will Bunch. It will help you to understand where we are today as Reagan ushered in the Neocons. It's a fairly quick easy read.
https://www.amazon.com/Tear-Down-This-Myth-Right-Wing/dp/1416597638
The obvious example that comes to mind is Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.
Another excellent book is Michael Mazarr's Unmodern Men in the Modern World: Radical Islam, Terrorism, and the War on Modernity.
You may also be interested in some of the Islamic perspectives:
Text:
By Steven WardMay 4 at 7:00 AM
On Tuesday, the Washington Examiner reported the State Department’s policy planning staff, led by Director Kiron Skinner, is “preparing for a clash of civilizations” with China. Skinner’s office is composing what it calls “Letter X” — styled after George Kennan’s “X Article” that laid out an argument for containing the Soviet Union during the first years of the Cold War.
The Examiner’s description of the State Department’s thinking contains remarkable details. Skinner describes great power competition with China as “a fight with a really different civilization and a different ideology, and the United States hasn’t had that before.” China “poses a unique challenge … because the regime in Beijing isn’t a child of Western philosophy and history.” The Cold War constituted “a fight within the Western family,” while the coming conflict with China is “the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian.”
[No, China and the U.S. aren’t locked in an ideological battle. Not even close.]
Skinner is right that “you can’t have a policy without an argument underneath it.” But the argument that seems to be informing U.S. China policy is deeply flawed and dangerous.
Has the United States never competed with a great power whose ideology or civilization was dramatically different from ours?
Skinner’s claim that China is the United States’ first ideologically distinct great power competitor is wrong. For one thing, it is not at all clear that such an ideology is central to Sino-American competition. For another, this mangles history. Nazi Germany is an obvious counterexample. The Soviet Union is a second. Skinner has written extensively on President Ronald Reagan, who would be surprised to learn that American competition with the U.S.S.R. — the “evil empire” — did not involve ideological differences.
To Skinner, the Cold War did not constitute a conflict of civilization because it took place within the “Western family.” She takes her cue from Samuel Huntington’s ideas about the “clash of civilizations.” But those ideas do not stand up to scrutiny. The concept of “civilization” lacks empirical support. Also, the enterprise of classifying countries according to dominant civilizations ignores the variety and contingency of identities, treating some as fixed or natural while erasing others. Nor is it clear that Russia was ever understood (or understood itself) as a fully Western or European nation.
Fortunately, Skinner offers a further clue about what she means. China, she notes, is the first great power competitor that the United States has faced that is “not Caucasian.” In the end, the argument is not about ideology or civilization. It is about race. China — unlike Russia — is not predominantly white, and thus must be dealt with differently.
Before World War II, Japan came to believe it wouldn’t be treated equally in world politics because of Western racial attitudes.
But the claim that the United States has never faced a non-Caucasian great power competitor is also wrong. Japan before World War II was a great power rival and was understood as racially different.
I've heard several people call Liberalism a Mental Disorder, I've seen it on bumper stickers. In fact, someone wrote a book with that exact title.
Even so, I'd say that an ideology that promotes the belief, for example, that we should not all have to work 40+ hours every week to have a decent life is not the same as having a compulsive behaviour preventing someone from accomplishing what they require for basic needs. For one, a belief is not the same as a behaviour.
Democratic socialism is a type of socialism informed by democratic and egalitarian values and critical of authoritarian structures that can be characterized as "dictatorships". From this perspective, socialism is not just about a change in government and government policy, but a transformation towards greater political democracy as well as democracy in the workplace (socialists used to use the term 'industrial democracy' as a shorthand for this). Higher levels of literacy and lower levels of poverty move this process (towards greater worker participation and liberty) along. And since socialism relies on democracy and requires democratic norms, a society where worker speech and organization are systematically controlled and restricted cannot qualify as socialist.
To quote one of my links below
>According to Ralph Miliband in Socialism for a Sceptical Age, three core propositions define socialism: (1) democracy, (2) egalitarianism, and (3) socialization or public ownership of a predominant part of the economy
As for Sanders, the way he uses 'democratic socialism' is more akin to European 'social democracy' which has evolved over the years into a ty[e of philosophy of government in the context of capitalism and liberal democracy. If we look at videos of Sanders from the 80s we see there was a period where he was more of a 'democratic socialist'. Sanders stuck with that self-identification (maybe out of habit), but it's fair to say his politics today are solidly 'social democratic'.
For background see
https://jacobinmag.com/2017/08/democratic-socialism-judis-new-republic-social-democracy-capitalism
http://www.dsausa.org/toward_freedom/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/miliband/1985/xx/beyondsd.htm
http://ouleft.org/wp-content/themes/wpremix3/images/21stCenturySocialism.pdf
https://thenextsystem.org/economic-democracy
https://thenextsystem.org/toward-democratic-eco-socialism-as-the-next-world-system
For book length treatments, see
https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Sceptical-Age-Ralph-Miliband/dp/1859840574
https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Past-Future-Michael-Harrington/dp/1611453356/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MZEMAZZY4S7VZXTCNE62
I'd also reccomend Mike MacNair's Revolutionary Strategy
Yes you really should read a [book] (https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-d-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1621573486) and get out of your echo chamber for once.
But you won't.
We need a trust circle in which the party, activists, and the average voter can engage in dialog and support. A philosophical stalemate between activists and the Idaho Democratic Party has led to a total communication breakdown. The average citizen has given up completely as they know the Democratic Party serves only millionaires and up. The activist resent the IDP for their greed, ineptitude, and frank reluctance to show any support for FDR's values.
The IDP refuses to acknowledge that neoliberalism has failed utterly and completely. The party base continues on roaring into the void while the IDP declines to support what might have been their best field organizers. Unfortunately the IDP has been hooked on the D.C. money funnel for so long they fail to see they have lost all credibility by supporting the DNC. If the IDP were to turn off the tap and start having faith in the citizens to provide for their economic well being they might turn things around. They dare not become accountable to the majority. The simple math determines that pleasing a wealthy minority easier and more profitable then attempting to solicit funding from the cash strapped average citizens. Politics have become a safe career to leach money from the upper crust, see Sally Boyton Brown skipping town.
The enthusiasm among the citizens for the IDP has bottomed out due to the radical differences in finical desires. Idaho's majority individuals lives in poverty or near poverty.. The average the median per capita income for Idaho was $24,273 in 2015. You need at least 30k to stop living pay check to pay check per person. The citizens want healthcare, green jobs, education and social security. The IDP waits in vain for a Idaho millionaire/billionaire to help build the "collation of the ascendant" that will never come to Idaho and what little was here has begun to crumble.
The Democrats for the past 40 years have been slowly dismantling the FDR values that brought them easy votes for multiple generations. They have become lazy and spoiled expecting the working class to keep blindly heaving them over the finish line. The working class well has finally run dry, see the 2016 Presidential elections. Now we face an impasse, do we burn down the crooked orchard and start again or do we try to prune down the twisted roots put down by the neoliberal elite?
The answer is neither. The IDP needs radical restructuring so as to knock out the hierarchical leadership. All party decision should return to directly to precinct captains. As in precinct captains act as a virtual house of representatives that elect a virtual senate made of the district leadership. The senate elects a party leader. Why add all this crazy complication to the political machine?
There's really no question about it. He has been an anarchist his entire life.
But to your second point, I can remember a conservative teacher complaining to the class about teaching Chomskian grammar, because she found his politics offensive, but couldn't discard his linguistic work.
It's not about free speech. Stop accepting that framing.
*This arguments is obviously less applicable to situations where they really are just sticking to speech, which is worth thinking about. Kinda a whole other can of worms I'm not really ready to get in to.
JtO's response seems to me the sort of emotion-laden bombast that you'd find from many political commentators. I don't think he has the reach of impact of a Glenn Beck or Andrew Sullivan, but the tactics aren't dissimilar and they do seem to work by shifting the Overton window.
I sometimes think that the most useful information many people here could learn is standard political issue framing. Pick up George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant and give it a read (don't panic if Lakoff doesn't mesh with your personal political stripe - the tactics are agnostic and the book examines which ones tend to be used by which side in a pretty even-handed way).
This is a political fight, and in political fights, words matter. Learning how to use them effectively forges your metaphorical linguistic sword and shield for that battle.
How much time do you have? If you have enough time, I’d recommend this book. It’s a little older but it’s the only one by Lakoff that I’ve personally read. It’s a very quick read and great help. There’s a book on a essentially the same topic by Frank Luntz and the thought of my money going to Luntz kinda makes me wanna puke but there’s no denying he’s effective at messaging. At the end of the day (and also sadly) facts won’t effect influence unless you can effect emotion from your message. That’s what the book is about.
Edit 1: Best of luck buddy!
Edit 2: If you don’t have enough time, or if you want a second pair of eyes, feel free to send me what you’re planning to say and I’ll use my experience with this to help. Just PM and we can work out the deets
> effective blocksize increase
"Effective blocksize increase" isn't too bad. Presuming that "blocksize increase" is the same thing as "effective blocksize increase" is what I'm objecting to. Perhaps you were just misreading Bitcoinopoly, or perhaps you were just abruptly disagreeing with his terminology, I don't know.
> before you started proposing "capacity increase"
I'm just following Greg Maxwell's terminology on that. I think he was being very careful in how he worded things in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion, and I appreciate his effort.
> cut-through transactions like Lightning
Interesting term. That's an improvement, thanks.
> You seem remarkably paranoid and quick to jump to negative conclusions.
Sorry, it maybe comes from being American. Politics in the USA are full of calculated use of [language and framing in order to direct debates] (http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-The-Progressives/dp/1931498717). I took enough classes as an undergrad to know how important these kinds of effects can be, and my cognitive science background makes it hard for me to not notice when these kinds of effects are occurring and potentially becoming significant. In this case it was probably unintentional.
george lakoffs book "dont think of an elephant" is an inexpensive, short, easy-to-read book that explains how language has been hijacked by the neo-cons, and what liberals can do about it.
A++++ would read again.
I keep coming back to Nick Cohen's What's Left when these things crop up. Some on the left have a big blind spot when it comes to the behaviour of others on the left, preferring to believe that their innately moral nature means that any reports of misdeeds must surely be propaganda of the right.
Plenty on the left supported Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq prior to 1991, as he was seen to be a pan-Arab socialist standing up to American neocolonialism. The fact that he massacred tens of thousands of Kurds was merely incidental.
Corbyn has banged on and on about how great Venezuela is, when it's wildly corrupt, funds FARC terrorism, and is now pretty close to becoming a totally failed petro-dictatorship.
This is just another example.
The Reactionary Mind by Corey Robin
Check the amazon reviews on her book
check out the reviews for this pile of shit book. Cannot believe she is even considered a so called 'journalist'
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/cr/0553447556/ref=mw_dp_cr
Climate denialism is inextricably linked to the discursive dynamics of varying forms of conservatism (American libertarianism, nativism, anti-globalism, so on) and more broadly, capitalism. Though the wealthiest of the world could support climate change policies and initiatives and still remain grotesquely rich, we have clear evidence that capitalism has repeatedly and systematically discouraged and failed to incentivize action. Then consider that the wealthiest individuals in Western society and elsewhere own most of the media. Though many (e.g.) Americans like to claim they are skeptical of the media, the overwhelming majority are absolutely plugged in to their reality, capitalist realism. Though not strictly on climate, check out Sheldon Wolin's Inverted Totalitarianism. A proper democracy would not tolerate the inaction on climate we see today.
Read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
It's probably considered racist by many, especially those left of centre, but according to this article in 2016 it was the fourth most read book in the top 10 US colleges so you cucks can blow me.
https://www.amazon.com/Clash-Civilizations-Remaking-World-Order/dp/1451628978
There are two main things that conservatives hate about globalism: (1) its penchant for centralizing power at the global level and (2) the premise that all cultures are of equal value.
Conservatives hate #1 because we believe that government functions best/legitimately at as local a level as possible. We distrust the consolidation of power that happens under nationalist/globalist regimes because it is inefficient and likely to be used to trample on people's rights. Local institutions are more accountable to, and better able to solve the unique problems of, the community they represent.
We hate #2 because we love the social and political values we've inherited from our forefathers. These values are under threat by elitist global institutions that push foreign values on unsuspecting peoples.
You may be interested in The Clash of Civilizations by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/1455501441
Educate yourself
You're still failing to respond... still waiting for an intelligent and rational argument here. Let me recommend you a book, because it is exactly what is going on to you.
What makes this even funnier is how you aren't even an American, just a sad troll.
> Liberalism is literally a mental disorder.
SAVAGE
Socialism/Communism
A People's History of the World
Main Currents of Marxism
The Socialist System
The Age of... (1, 2, 3, 4)
Marx for our Times
Essential Works of Socialism
Soviet Century
Self-Governing Socialism (Vols 1-2)
The Meaning of Marxism
The "S" Word (not that good in my opinion)
Of the People, by the People
Why Not Socialism
Socialism Betrayed
Democracy at Work
Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA (again didn't like it very much)
The Socialist Party of America (absolute must read)
The American Socialist Movement
Socialism: Past and Future (very good book)
It Didn't Happen Here
Eugene V. Debs
The Enigma of Capital
Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism
A Companion to Marx's Capital (great book)
After Capitalism: Economic Democracy in Action
Capitalism
The Conservative Nanny State
The United States Since 1980
The End of Loser Liberalism
Capitalism and it's Economics (must read)
Economics: A New Introduction (must read)
U.S. Capitalist Development Since 1776 (must read)
Kicking Away the Ladder
23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism
Traders, Guns and Money
Corporation Nation
Debunking Economics
How Rich Countries Got Rich
Super Imperialism
The Bubble and Beyond
Finance Capitalism and it's Discontents
Trade, Development and Foreign Debt
America's Protectionist Takeoff
How the Economy was Lost
Labor and Monopoly Capital
We Are Better Than This
Ancap/Libertarian
Spontaneous Order (disagree with it but found it interesting)
Man, State and Economy
The Machinery of Freedom
Currently Reading
This is the Zodiac Speaking (highly recommend)
They've read too much Dinesh D'Souza.
Who am I kidding? They probably just listened to too many talking points on right wing media generated by the book.
Absolutely true. Dinesh D’Souza proves this in his book “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left”
Link:
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
"With his trademark sardonic wit and lacerating logic, Frank's Listen, Liberal lays bare the essence of the Democratic Party's philosophy and how it has changed over the years. A form of corporate and cultural elitism has largely eclipsed the party's old working-class commitment, he finds. For certain favored groups, this has meant prosperity. But for the nation as a whole, it is a one-way ticket into the abyss of inequality. In this critical election year, Frank recalls the Democrats to their historic goals-the only way to reverse the ever-deepening rift between the rich and the poor in America." https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
And the Dems are not listening to us. On the contrary, the money of the privileged class is speaking.
A good explainer. http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462717848&sr=1-1&keywords=listen+liberal
>So where did nationalism come from? Most historians view nations as “imagined communities” and that many of their traditions were “invented”
Yeah, they're called that because of the book written in 1983 by Benedict Anderson called Imagined Communities, which coincidentally is where essentially all of the ideas outlined in this post come from without any form of citation.
The book is actually quite good. You all should just read that if you're interested.
The first one I read was Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, which was a great introduction. It's short and very easy to get into. You can read it in an afternoon. It's actually from a speech he gave, so you can probably find the audio online for free and listen to it instead if you prefer.
But his best book, in my opinion, is Understanding Power. It's more of a collection of essays, speeches and interviews, but it really shaped my understanding of the world better than any other book I have read. I can't recommend this book enough.
If you're more interested in libertarian socialism, in addition to Understanding Power, read Chomsky on Anarchism. He presents the theories in very clear language, instead of being overly theoretical.
If you're more interested in his writings on US foreign policy, also read either Failed States or Hegemony or Survival.
Enjoy!
> This is rationalism?
Reading people who have object- and meta-level views you may disagree with? Yes. I wouldn't hesitate to read The Emerging Democratic Majority if I were interested in their methodology as opposed to just a couple of soundbites that I heard repeated elsewhere in the blogosphere when the book first came out.
The Dems did abandon the white working class, or at the very least were in the process of doing so. I will give no specific policy evidence for this but will give an underlying truth. We had the emerging Democratic majority. We had "the jobs arent coming back mantra", we had the deplorables, we had record immigration(both legal and illegal), we had proposed amnesties for illegals, we had identity politics coming out of our ears, we had race and ethnic baiting. All this with an eye on the electoral advantage to the Democrats. All this to ensure the soon to be Dem Majority. Even if you disagree with the above I think you have to admit the emerging Democratic Majority had some influence on how Dems had been playing politics recently.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Emerging-Democratic-Majority-John-Judis/dp/0743254783
I've read many books on socialism.
The evidence is very clear. I highly recommend read this book.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=socialism&qid=1555585874&s=gateway&sr=8-5
Is this a Warren Meme? It's pretty clever, tbh. Reminds me of this book on socialism.
Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions
Father's day is coming up, OP should get his dad a copy of Michael Savage's book, Liberalism is a Mental Disease
Brainwashed by Ben Shapiro
Ben’s at it, too. With FACTS and LOGIC!!!!1!!11!
>Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth Paperback – June 14, 2010
>Brainwashed is the explosive exposé of the leftist agenda at work in today's colleges, revealed by firebrand Ben Shapiro, a recent UCLA gratudate, syndicated columnist, and one of today's most exciting new conservative voices, who's been on the front lines of the battle for America's young minds. This book proves once and for all that so-called higher education continues to sink lower and lower into the depths of liberal madness as close-minded professors turn their students into socialists, atheists, race-baiters, and sex-crazed narcissists.
The first and hardest concept to grasp is that socialism is only an economic system. It is often conflated with the political system, communism, but both are very broad. Wikipedia's article is actually very good for an overview.
The question that neturally arises from an overview of socialism is, "well, how would we implement this so we can enjoy [insert level of quality of life]?" And that is a very involved discussion.
I've also found that Michael Harrington's Socialism: Past and Future to be a good read, but I'm sure there are others here that could recommend better books.
I left years and years ago. 9/11 opened my eyes to what the left was all about, I remember people on the left saying stuff like “what did we do to offend them?”
I couldn’t believe it. 3000 dead Americans in one day, and these people were asking what we did to offend the Islamic mental cases that did it?
Over the years it has just gotten worse and worse as the left has become more and more fascist.
Here’s a good book to understand the left:
The Big Lie
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
Listen, Liberal by Thomas Frank
>Also Clinton supporters being right wing? I don't see it, like Trump supporters most Clinton supporters are coming straight from Obama and I don't see how they're right wing.
From a modern American perspective, no. But from a global perspective yes. It used to be very different, in FDR's time for example. People did fight against his social-democrat policies, but they were adopted and widely popular. I mentioned how the John Birch Society shifted the Republicans to the right, and that's where things started to change. After McGovern's loss and, later, 12 years of Reagan and his VP being massively popular somehow, Democratic leaders assumed that they couldn't win by appealing to the left (which ignored the other circumstances surrounding McGovern's loss and Reagan's win). When they got back into power it was with Bill Clinton, who explicitly pursued a centrist agenda (he called it "triangulation") that included dismantling/privatizing the welfare state (welfare reform), expanding the police state and deregulating the financial industry (Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000). And these are all positions which were considered right-wing in the pre-Bill Clinton era. Now fast-forward to Obama, who has basically pursued the same foreign policy as Bush II, and whose central accomplishment is a bill which is an altered form of a healthcare-reform idea proposed by the far-right Heritage Foundation, and he is basically being attacked as a secret communist by Republicans. Frankly, it's rather insulting to the communists to group Obama with them.
(The book Listen, Liberal discusses in more detail how the Democratic Party moved to the right, if you're curious in reading further into this.)
>the real problem that we both should be against is the current corrupt people in power which is why a lot of people support Trump's promises to get rid of the people dividing us further for their own gain.
His proposals for lobbying reform and term limits aren't bad actually. But his proposed cabinet is, well, it's certainly a change from Democratic corruption but not the good kind. The people he's proposing are mostly distinguished by loyalty rather than actually fitting their position (lol Ben Carson), most of them have conflicts of interest based on their business histories, and most of them are big donors to the Trump campaign. Is any of this unusual for a Presidential cabinet? Well, not really, but it doesn't inspire hope about Trump actually wanting to address corruption more than nominally. And maybe he won't appoint any people with connections to the right-wing's favorite boogeymen such as Soros (though Mnuchin is a close Soros associate so... lol) but for every Dem-aligned billionaire rigging the system in their favor there's a Republican one doing the same thing. There's the Kochs, ALEC, and so on. Corruption isn't a Dem-only thing. When businesses spend billions to elect their stooges, that's an assault to democracy, doesn't matter which party's doing it (as I've said, the two parties are not too different in their goals at this point). But I never see Trump supporters worry about the Kochs or ALEC, oddly. I think that they're using anti-corruption as a cover for partisanship, ultimately.
If anti-corruption reform does happen, it's not going to occur thanks to politicians and businesspeople who've benefited from it. You can't use the system to change the system. Big money is the problem. And capitalism more broadly is the problem. Electing someone who'll just put the big businesses in power directly, rather than having them go through middlemen, isn't a solution in my opinion. If you want to get shit done, you do it through a mass movement and direct action. The civil rights and women's rights movements didn't succeed because they elected the right people, they succeeded because they essentially used sheer manpower (or, womanpower in the latter case) to make the government change shit. That's real democracy, IMO.
that's one way to understand nationalism. here's the most influential book ever written on nationalism: https://www.amazon.com/Imagined-Communities-Reflections-Origin-Nationalism/dp/1784786756
By my appraisal, in the US, it's largely
a) Jingoism trussed up as international policy.
US Americans are, culturally, one of the most nationalist and patriotic people. Because it is cultural, many Americans are unaware of it and assume that citizens of other countries are just as nation-focused.
Something that's important to understand is that the jigsaw puzzle of sovereign nation-states is largely a modern invention. It was pushed by land-owners and empiricists to further the strength of existing "nations" (like the UK) and give them justification for colonial holdings/future cultural imperialism (like Japan).
So, this is generally where fear of "Globalists wanting one world government, etc etc" comes from. People have been conditioned to believe in a competitive, invidious world state that really only came about in the last couple centuries and that, I might add, runs counter to the idea of a nation-state (which is a unity of people based on economic, territorial pragmatism, regardless of cultural differences, etc.). "Suppression of traditional cultural identities" refers to things like gay marriage, the non-denominational holiday greetings, etc. which are all White Christian culture finally being forced to give up its top position (which is why many non-discriminatory modern nationalists call for "White America").
b) An inherent feature of modern economies being blamed on the scapegoat of globalism
Basic, academic consensus economic theory teaches us that it is better to participate in a global market - allowing certain countries to produce or trade goods for which they are better equipped (i.e. bananas coming from tropical regions).
However (and this is the same fear as the one of automation), in the US, those benefits go to private businesses and then the government is supposed to tax those businesses and distribute those taxes as benefits to the people (oversimplification, I'm sure). Since businesses at that scale seemingly exist solely for profit, their structure requires them to try to avoid taxes and maximize income. Large businesses will continue to pour resources into successfully finding/squeezing through tax loopholes (because they're basically in a spending race against the US government) and smaller businesses might see modest expansion tethered by increased taxation.
In Western economies, that's basically the existing plutocracy increasing its capital aka "the rich get richer". Which is a natural consequence of the US economy in which the more capital you have, the more capital you can get. It's as true domestically as it is internationally - wealth disparity in the US was worse in the early 20th century, when isolationism was popular.
Reading this comic might give you a clearer picture on the rationale behind US populism. You'll notice the fear of international influence (China), the lack of belief in international regulatory or diplomatic solutions to exploitative business practice (moving of labor/production), and the mindset that any benefit to the existing hegemony is taboo. Not to say that there weren't/aren't legitimate grievances with this specific trade agreement, but they're muddled by omen.
It's Manichean us vs them, the USA vs other countries, the poor vs the rich - which pretty much defines populism. You can only have a group by defining who is and isn't part of the group - and if you make it "common sense" to act in the "group's best interests", then everyone who acts against your group must be acting against your best interest (rather than acting in their own interests, or to prevent negative consequences of your group's actions). Never stopping to ask if your group is actually acting in its own best interest or if those interests were even rationally defined in the first place.
Of course, that's also how things like FDA and EPA regulation got implemented. I'm not sure exactly where the line is between "slaughterhouse sanitation policies reduce risk of disease" and "the Chinese are coming to take my land and the Muslims are coming to kill us all". I think it's to do with significant, measurable risk vs nebulous potentiality.
This interview is transcribed in the book Chomsky on Anarchism.
I have noticed that when existing moral or cognitive categories/structures are challenged, people tend to regress to more basic ones. So even as many people have embraced liberal human rights ideas, such as gender equality and dignity for QUILTBAG (LGBTQIA+), many others are in a backlash as they pull back to try to find something that they can understand and rely on, and that tends to be more simplified power and authority structures where big/loud=strong.
George Lakoff described some of this thinking in Don't Think of an Elephant.
You might be thinking of George Lakoff's Don't Think of An Elephant (2004). I searched the wiki of episode guests from 1999 - 2006, but Lakoff doesn't appear. He has written many books over 40 years, has lots of interviews on youtube; plenty of material to sink your teeth into.
If Lakoff wasn't what you were searching, maybe he'll be a good substitute.
>It seems to me that the gist of conservatism relies on two things, (1) mistrust of a priori (utopian) reasoning and revolutions, (2) and trust in incremental changes by past experiences and wisdom.
If you one day feel like challenging this conception of yours, i recommend taking a look at the book The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin by Corey Robin.
Don't forget to leave your own review! https://www.amazon.com/Barons-Beltway-Washington-Elite-Overthrow/dp/0553447556?ie=UTF8&SubscriptionId=AKIAJBDF5XQBATGDX4VQ&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0553447556&linkCode=xm2&tag=spea06-20
The corporate control of the media and de facto control of the government is corporate fascism, or what the political theorist Sheldon Wolin called “inverted totalitarianism.” Check out his book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/069114589X/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdb_t1_Qx9qDbZ87KK29
Even fascists have unions. So do communists. So do socialists. So do dictatorships. They too have their orgs. For Benito it was black shirts, for Hitler, the SS. For the US, the KKK and later American Bund.
Per Wolin and his magnum opus, I know there isn't one democratic institution in the United states.
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
The NRA can't be a democratic institution. The united states is hybrid to authoritarian when stripped of American execeptualism.
British author and journalist Nick Cohen wrote about this in 2007 in his book What's Left?: How the Left Lost its Way: How Liberals Lost Their Way Where he discusses this unholy alliance came to be of the left and the Islamist far right.
The left have become so rabidly anti-US/West that they have adopted the idea of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend". They have abandoned their core principles and will make bedfellows with those that are antithetical to their world view and goals. This is how you have British Labour protesters marching shouting "We are all Hamas" or have an ostensibly progressive organization to combat fascism named Unite Against Fascism have an Islamist Fascist serving on the board...
A principled left would be supporting Arab intellectuals, journalists, authors, professors, feminists, trade unionists, Marxists, etc. Instead we have the left supporting the far right Islamist movements in these parts of the world i.e. Hamas, Hizbollah, etc.
I know the author splits opinions, but Nick Cohen's book What's Left? really is an excellent deconstruction of the Corbyn-style left in Britain. It's never been more relevant than now, I read it recently and it's spot on in many of it's arguments and insights.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Whats-Left-How-Lost-its-Liberals-Their/0007229704
For What's Left?
source: http://coreyrobin.com/2016/02/27/why-you-should-never-listen-to-the-pundits/
...in case anyone wants to sign up for Corey's email updates—they're a goldmine (he's the author of The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin)
> I've met plenty of conservatives who don't see anyone as inferior.
It's not usually explicit, that specific people are inferior. But the ideology believes that the "better" people should control the lessers in various spheres in society. Great related book here: https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-Burke/dp/0199959110
> nowadays you won't see anyone on National Review or so implying someone is less worth.
https://newrepublic.com/article/131583/national-reviews-revolt-masses
While you're right that both parties have done some terrible things, technically, the Republicans are demonstrably MORE culpable in this bullshit. I highly recommend this book. It's pretty damning.
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
Whenever people make this false equivalency, it shows their lack of understanding of how Republicans have governed over the past 30 years.
From a bipartisan source (one expert from Brookings, another from the Heritage Foundation), actually it's true.
>When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
>“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism
Brilliant book that takes a very serious look in to both sides over the last decade. It's written by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein who have spend decades studying congress and pride them selves on being as non partisan as they can.
Edit: Didn't read the part about not being too wordy and this most likely falls in to that category. Excerpt Going to leave this here for others though.
Here is the desktop version of OP's link
> Michelle Fields
LMFAO, writing career BTFO'd
https://www.amazon.com/Barons-Beltway-Washington-Elite---Overthrow/dp/0553447556/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466785680&sr=8-1&keywords=michelle+fields#customerReviews
She is pressing charges on the grounds of battery which is basically touching.
Let's be honest here, she was being aggressive and repeatedly ignoring calls to stop touching Trump. Corey grabbed her arm, stopped her, and moved past her. Would anyone in their right mind say, that's battery and actually press charges? Even Piers Morgan is calling her on her bullshit.
She is releasing a book in June. Either she is pushing this beyond what it should be or someone else is pushing her to do it in order to try and smear Trump.
Her new book
> It's so offensive to imagine resources being squandered on luxury yachts and sports cars just so that rich people have something to continue spending more and more money on.
This is what you get when you support capitalism. You'd have to strictly limit how much any one individual could gain. Note that it's a matter of history and population size, not that these people "earned" their money. Not to mention our current societies are based on massive historical slaughters and injustices.
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/
I suggest reading Democracy Inc [1]. Fun book!
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
>For some reason they went absolutely insane when he won.
I can't speak to why the base lost their minds in such a drastic fashion (outside of just regurgitating the hysteria they get from the media), but the party leadership is losing it because Trump winning put a pretty big dent in the whole Demographic Destiny idea that they've been building up for the last 15 years. They honestly thought by now they'd be ruling a 1 party state in all but name, at least at the federal level.
You can track the Democrat strategy of silent approval of increasing illegal immigration and doing everything they can to appeal to ethnic minorities to riiiight around the time this trash was published.
Great list! Regarding the question of violence, I would add How Nonviolence Protects the State and Pacifism as Pathology because your list seems a slightly one-sided.
How Nonviolence Protects the State
I got the political statements from this book: https://www.amazon.com/Tear-Down-This-Myth-Right-Wing/dp/1416597638
It goes into more detail about how much Lee Atwater was doing for Reagan by the end of his administration. Having said that it also messes up a Gorbachev quote by having him say "Karl Rove" instead of "Lee Atwater" and I quoted it wrong for years because of that book until a reddit user corrected me. However generally it has a good reputation and that quote was corrected. So I think he just wrote it down wrong at some point or an editor messed it up before publication.
Honestly, I haven't come across a ton of good textbooks explaining the basics of IR theory. The Wikipedia page is a pretty good starting point for the big theoretical schools.
Neorealism and Its Critics is also a modern classic on IR theory you'd read in most college or graduate level IR courses. Waltz's Theory of International Relations is also a seminal text. Sam Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" Article and Book were both extremely important to recent thinking on IR.
As the world gets more homogenised, people facing a loss of identity seek kinship with people with shared values. You can see this with radicalised Muslims. In Indian students associations in American universities.
The Clash of Civilizations is a great book if you want more information. Some parts of it have been discredited, some are outright racist, but the central premise still stands.
For $10 you can get Liberty Defined which is everything you're looking for and more.
His book, liberty defined would be a great starting place.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/1455501441/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333121760&sr=8-1
for opposition, maybe any books written by the other candidates.
Great! I'd start with this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537527/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480350675&sr=8-1&keywords=ron+paul+the+revolution
and then follow up with this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/1455501441/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480350707&sr=8-1&keywords=ron+paul+liberty+defined
Pick up a copy of Liberty Defined, Ron Paul has a great short summary in the book.
The basic problem is how government encourages employer based health care through tax incentives. But government even created the employer based health care mess when they had wage caps on labor from FDR through Nixon, so employers started offing healthcare to subsidize for the lower wages government mandated through those years. So there is no real option currently with healthcare, you get the healthcare your employer provides you and that's it. You rarely hear people complaining about their house or car insurance because if their premiums go up to much, they change provider, change their deductible, or change their coverage amounts. This puts the customer in charge of their insurance. But we don't have those options now.
Also, back in the day when Ron Paul was practicing, all the doctor students would sign the Hippocratic Oath which basically stated it was their duty to provide for the poor. They did this in various ways, sometimes discounts, some times payment plans, some times they did work pro bono. But once medicare/medicaid were introduced, this whole practice disappeared.
Another problem is price transparency. There is one surgery clinic in Oklahoma that no longer takes medicare/medicaid patients and is a free market only practice. Since they don't loose money because of government underpaying them for work at the medicare/medicaid pricing, they don't have to jack up the cost for the other patients. The result is costs that are 1/5 to 1/10 of the prices insurance would pay in other hospitals. Almost every surgery they offer is less than $12K, the most expensive is some penis surgery that is 15k.
I kind of lost my train of thought, but what America has now is no where near the Free Market system and hasn't been for many many decades. Probably the last time it was free market was the last time no one was complaining about the system and before government got involved.
>. Clinton could have just written fuck trump for 500 pages and I'd probably find a way to justify it being my favorite book of the year.
reminds me of this
Why Socialism Works by Harrison Lievesley
http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550437
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Michael-Savage/dp/1595550437
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550437
related: https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550437
It's just as valid a concept as as this one
Near as I can tell, the idea of "Liberal professors brainwashing students" comes from:
Right-leaning source:
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/betsy-devos-educators-brainwashing/
Some selective censorship:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3960800/KATIE-HOPKINS-College-liberals-think-people-voted-Trump-Brexit-dumb-letting-brainwash-society-s-stupid.html
Another UK source:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/what-explains-the-idiocy-of-the-liberal-elite-its-their-education/
A book:
https://www.amazon.com/Brainwashed-Universities-Indoctrinate-Americas-Youth/dp/1595559795
A tabloid:
http://nypost.com/2017/01/09/how-trump-can-end-brainwashing-on-us-campuses/
Fox News:
https://youtu.be/-fyISqxPUSw
HuffPo admits it:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1312889
NYTimes describes it here:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/opinion/sunday/how-liberal-colleges-breed-conservative-firebrands.html
But denied it years before:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opinion/sunday/college-doesnt-make-you-liberal.html
This girl describes her woes:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/liberal-arts-college-turned-me-into-a-conservative
>Do you listen to yourself?
What do you listen to? yourself?
Jimmies have been maximum rustled. If anyone wants to gift a liberal family member or friend in college, check out check out Ben Shapiro's book Brainwashed. Excellent read.
Erst mal auf eine Definition einigen http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/rechtsradikal die Synonyme anschauen.
Und dann ist es ein klares Nein. Wie gesagt: Sozialismus ist links. Buch dazu: https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
Wenn wir diese absurde Definition nehmen:
"Als rechtsradikal haben wir Positionen definiert, die sich gegen das Grundgesetz richten und Aussagen, in denen die Kandidaten gegen Minderheiten hetzen."
Sind dann Kommunisten rechtsradikal? Würde auf einer Linie laufen mit der MdB von den Linken, die Stalin als rechts tituliert hat. Wir kommen wieder an den Punkt, wo man sich fragen muss, was man eigentlich fragt. Rechtsradikal ist ein Synonym für 'böse' geworden, dass von den 'Guten' bekämpft werden muss. Deswegen sind gewaltbereite Antifaschisten in ihren eigenen Augen die Guten.
Beschreibt D'Souza auch in seinem Buch, wie ähnlich die Taktiken sind. Was die Nazis Untermenschen nannten um ihnen die Menschwürde abzusprechen und sie zu verfolgen, dass nennen die angeblichen Antifaschisten Intolerant um ihnen die Menschenwürde abzusprechen und sie zu jagen.
Oder die gleichen Informationen auf Deutsch von Klonovsky:
> Als die Lebensgefährtin von Meuthen mit ihrer siebenjährigen Tochter, eskortiert von Security und Polizei, zum benachbarten Hotel läuft, werden sie von einem breiten gesellschaftlichen Bündnis beschimpft und attackiert. Das Kind ist danach völlig verstört. Später bricht Meuthen selbst auf, ebenfalls von einem uniformierten Kordon geschützt, und der Mob rastet aus. Pfiffe, Schreie, besessene, wutverzerrte Gesichter – ein Goya-Capriccio anno 2017. Die Kobolde rennen neben dem Oppositionstrüppchen her, brüllen "Nazis raus!", "Haut ab!", "AfD – Rassistenpack!" und ähnliche Urworte orphisch. Einige versuchen, in den Kordon zu drängen, kommen aber nicht an den Beamten vorbei. Man sieht staunend und betroffen: Manche dieser Bakchen würden den AfD-Vorsitzenden gern zerreißen, ihn auf dem Alter ihres perversen Antifaschismus, der längst dem Original zum Verwechseln ähnlich sieht, dem Götzen der Diversity, Vielfalt, Buntheit und Menschenfreundlichkeit zum Opfer bringen; die ganze Szenerie ohne die Staatsgewalt, und der Parteiführer teilte das Schicksal des Pentheus. Der Kampf gegen die vermeintlichen Nazis bringt lauter neue echte hervor. Ich laufe ein paar Meter hinter dem kleinen Pulk und rechne jeden Moment damit, von der Seite angesprungen zu werden, doch die gesamte Aggressivität der Meute konzentriert sich auf Meuthen, ungefähr wie Boxer während des Kampfes den Ringrichter nicht wahrnehmen. Vor dem Hotel flutschen zwei brüllende Furien von höchstens zwanzig Jahren durch die Security und kreischen ihr "Wir kriegen euch!" auf einem Hysterielevel, welches Drogengebrauch vermuten lässt. Als Meuthens Begleiter die eine auf Polnisch anspricht, ist die kurz völlig irritiert und blafft schließlich, er möge gefälligst deutsch zu ihr sprechen. Endlich schließt sich die Hoteltür hinter uns, und das beste Deutschland, das es jemals gab, bleibt draußen. An der Hotelbar klingt der Abend beschaulich aus. Eigentlich schade, dass den Schulz, Tauber, Stegner, Roth, Schwesig, Gabriel et al. eine solche Erfahrung mit den Früchten ihrer Saat verwehrt bleibt.
> Am Rande: Wieviel Courage erfordert es, sich gegen die AfD zu "bekennen"? Null. Welche Gefahr droht bei einer Demo gegen "rechts"? Keine. Was aber gewinnt man? Ein gutes Gewissen, "zivilgesellschaftliche“ Anerkennung, Aufstieg auf der Tugendskala, "Sinn", Lob vom Parteisekretär, ggfs. Kohle von Frau Schwesig, ggfs. Sündenablass, in jedem Fall Herdenbehagen. Es ist pures Wellness.
https://www.michael-klonovsky.de/acta-diurna
Sind das Rechtsradikale, die hier auf ein siebenjähriges Mädchen losgehen? Die die Minderheit (13%) AfD-Wähler mit Gewalt bedrohen und gegen sie hetzen?
Knowledge is only a Besos away
Exactly, a system excluding independents 7 months before the vote, when people barley know any other candidate but the establishment name-recognition candidate, is not corruption, definitely not rigged, it's the voters stupidity for having busy lives and being disgusted by the dirty tricks of the two parties.
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
They should just know to make sure the system didn't exclude them months before the candidates have even set foot in their state to pitch for their vote.
Trump merely just has to say the democratic primary was rigged and it falls on sympathetic ears, he's now winning amongst the people cheated by that process, and you are calling them idiots, I have rarely seen something so obviously backwards, your perspective makes it that that simple for one of the biggest liars to tell the truth, my god.
The Democratic Party hasn't been liberal for 35 years. It is astounding that liberals still believe the DNC represents them.
Thomas Frank explains it way better than I can, and it is worth a read or listen:
Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? https://www.amazon.com/dp/1627795391
I'll ignore the "insult" part and just focus on the label.
Liberals isn't just used by people talking about those who are "too far left". They are people who believe in or advocate for one of the liberal ideologies. Why do you think it's "toxic" to have a label we can use to refer to those who believe in and advocate for a specific ideology (or family of closely related ideologies)?
Now, I'm not going to disagree it's not misused, but that's a thing that's always going to happen with words, especially ideologies. It's a useful rhetorical tool and, let's be honest, most people aren't gonna have, want, or need a nuanced understandings of the features that differentiate their perceived enemies. Euphemisms happen. Ignorance is a fact of life. I understand people are going to call me a liberal sometimes because they don't know what I am, and that's okay - I'm sure I've done the same to others in other situations!
And yeah, it's gonna get misused as a symbol for the purpose of virtue signaling, but anything could be.
That doesn't mean the word isn't useful, and it is (often) used in a way that is perfectly descriptive. To a certain extent, I sort of feel like this post is an attempt to deny that the ideology even exists, or that it's particularly common - but it is an ideology, a fairly coherent one, and it is a common (often outright dominant) ideology on college campuses, in news rooms, in the entertainment industry and the halls of politics on the Democratic side. How else will you better describe those ideologies and their advocates if not using the word that literally means that?
I think it's also important we have the word, so we can differentiate between the different flavours of leftist thought - between the liberals, the neoliberals (who really aren't particularly liberal despite the name), the socialists (of various flavours) and those who identify as none of the three.
What exactly do you think "Listen, Liberal" should have been called instead? Who exactly would we say the book was trying to address?
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
Those two quotations are from the front matter of Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?, the new book from Thomas Frank.
http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
Read this book and it will make sense
http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208
The link will take you to a book of his. The book is about his personal anarchist views.
I thought you were talking about this book, which I refer to as "my Bible."
You ever read any George Lakoff? Check out: https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717
If you found this article interesting, checkout "Don't think of the elephant" by George Lakoff. He goes in much deeper into the whole Horatio Alger myth and how it affects US politics.
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717
Everyone please read this book https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717
We can take back our country!
this fantastic and short book is a great primer on the cognitive science that underlies political leanings
In short -- conservativism and liberalism constitute holistic world views.
The conservative world view is one in which the following exist: good, evil, weak, strong, work, and sloth. The strong and good must protect the weak from evil. people show their nature through their actions. ultimately this means they get what they deserve. it is evil to interfere with that process because it hampers justice.
The liberal world view is one in which these categorical divisions blur due to complex causality. Behavior that looks like evil can be protective and result from previously received trauma. A good work ethic can be the result of a good and safe upbringing. A bad one can be the result of hampered development. Ultimately we are all the same and deserving of nurturance.
I didn't downvote you, and never downvote what I consider sincere and well-meaning posts by people trying to contribute new ideas, after all, that's how new ideas get going...but I have to say that I don't think more Orwellian double-speak bumper-stickers is necessarily what the Dems need. What we really need is for the American public to finally get their heads out of their asses. A book recommendation for you: Don't Think of an Elephant! Also, a little reminder: it doesn't get much more simple, catchy, and benevolent than "Hope" and "Change."
Read Lakoff's, Dont think of an elephant. It talks about how politicians like Lamar frame their debates around issues similar to SOPA. You can learn a lot from the book on running a productive campaign against politicians who try misrepresenting an issue.
A great book that discusses why some don't want taxes on the rich, are against abortion but for the death penalty. Don't think of an elephant!. Summary: some believe in the nurturing parent theory, others believe in the strong father theory.
I'm being down-voted, but seriously. This isn't just once in a lifetime. We can repeat this. We have to. Electing Bernie once won't do much this first point . We need to sustain. We need a new generation of politicians like Bernie. That is the only way the liberal vision will survive.
George Lakoff has some great ideas on liberal language that people should read! Language is important! I'll post some links to his works. Incorporate them into your daily life. PM me and I might buy you the books. We need an awaking of liberal frames.
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-The-Progressives/dp/1931498717
http://www.amazon.com/The-Little-Blue-Book-Democratic-ebook/dp/B007WT31BM
Little blue book annotations:
http://www.nowforourturn.org/Reframing/The%20Little%20Blue%20Book.pdf
Seriously. The language of the debate is important. I'll be releasing a paper on language of Bernie vs Hillary soon. I'm not respected or good at writing, but I think it has a good few points on the language we use. It's more important that people think.
Read "Don't think about an elephant" (https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717) for an excellent rundown of how the GOP has used language to shape the thinking (when people bother to think) over the last 30+ years.
Reddit should read more George Lakoff. He said the same thing years ago.
Don't Think of An Elephant
Two books related to upbringing and politics that you might enjoy: George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant and Thomas Franks' What's the Matter with Kansas?
Lakoff also has some youtube videos of his lectures.
>The only way to counter this is to use "fox news" tactics. Step one: Give this law a catchy nickname that will make people oppose it.
There's actually a best-selling book about those tactics:
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-The-Progressives/dp/1931498717
Everyone still puzzled by right-wing tactics in the US should read George Lakoff's Don't Think Of An Elephant.
Chapter 1 is especially relevant:
http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/dont_think_of_an_elephant:paperback/chapter_1
Starting? It started with the SWP. As usual it's not mainstream, but it's not new either.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Whats-Left-Lost-Liberals-Their/dp/0007229704/
> It is bad for the world. The US is fucking amazing, Europe is spineless and China doesn't give a fuck.
True
> Unfortunately, I think the US' golden age is over, and the world doesn't know what its got, until its gone.
You might be right, but I think this is a matter of popular perception. The US golden age as far as the US being loved does seem to be waning. As far as it's influence and power is concerned I think it's still strong. Much of the anti-Americanism (and anti-westernism) in the world is due to conspiracy theories but also partly to blame on leftists and I am a leftist/liberal just so you know.
This anti-NATO protest in Chicago is one example of what I mean.
I recommend watching this interview with the British journalist Nick Cohen:
Part 1 & Part 2 on his book "What's Left: How the Left Lost its Way"
At least Tony Blair doesn't have the western liberal guilt that many have...
Another part to the perception of western decline not just American is the rise of other big economies like China, India and Brazil.
Osama Bin Laden even said something like "we have to bleed the Americans". GW Bush's war strategy was forceful and huge in order to show American power but it was too expensive and hurt the economy. Exactly what Bin Laden wanted.
Obama is also part of this perception because of the way he talks. He wants to end American exceptionalism, which sounds like a fair thing to do but is ultimately a dangerous thing. He doesn't seem to me to believe that America is a leader in the world anymore.
> Politics still is a dirty game, and it has to be. The US and the UK can easily be called terrorists. They have done horrible things, and it sounds Machiavellian, but there are definitely times when the ends justifies the means, if you want rapid, more reliable results.
I agree with what you say here but I don't agree that the US and the UK can easily be called terrorists. They do not meet the definition of being terrorist states or state sponsors of terrorism. I don't think you can make that equivalence.
> That is the problem with democracy.
I agree. Another problem with democracy is the belief that if you give people free elections that they will choose wisely. Another problem is people misunderstanding democracy and believing it means majority rule. Yet another problem is trying to spread democracy without spreading secularism. The United States forced a constitution on Japan after WW2 and the Japanese people have barely changed it since and look how great their country is. So that proves you are right when you imply that an iron fist has to be used sometimes. I don't think that a kind and reasonable dictator is such a bad thing.
> And I liked Ron paul in the beginning. He was kind of adorable. But all that Gold standard/Austrian school/Mises shiz was just silly. Before you worry about a potential presidents stance on abortion, you have to look and see if he has a basic grasp of economics.
Haha yeah! He wants (i'm not sure if this is still his position) to shut down the US central bank and believes this will somehow improve the economy!
> It is illegal to serve as governor while being an atheist in more than 10-20 states. Half the country doesn't believe gays should be able to marry. They don't think prostitution or drugs should be legalized. The US has to take care of itself. It is the only civilized country without socialized healthcare. The jail situation is incredibly depressing, especially for the black population.
I don't see why a country like the US can't fix it's domestic problems while still having a strong foreign policy. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
> Your problem is that you care on an emotional level maybe.
Of course I care on an emotional level but I don't think on an emotional level.
> Being in the UK, I assume you are Indian or Pakistani?
I'm Egyptian and moved with my parents and sister to the UK when I was 4 years old.
> Not an isolationist. First you have to love yourself, before you can love others.
Agreed. I don't think your an isolationist btw.
I have to admit, I didn't put much effort into this post but I did read all of your post carefully.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Whats-Left-How-Lost-its-Liberals-Their/0007229704
"From the much-loved, witty and excoriating voice of journalist Nick Cohen, a powerful and irreverent dissection of the agonies, idiocies and compromises of mainstream liberal thought.
Nick Cohen comes from the Left. While growing up, his mother would search the supermarket shelves for politically reputable citrus fruit and despair. When, at the age of 13, he found out that his kind and thoughtful English teacher voted Conservative, he nearly fell off his chair: 'To be good, you had to be on the Left.'
Today he's no less confused. When he looks around him, in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, he sees a community of Left-leaning liberals standing on their heads. Why is it that apologies for a militant Islam that stands for everything the liberal-Left is against come from a section of the Left? After the American and British wars in Bosnia and Kosovo against Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansers, why were men and women of the Left denying the existence of Serb concentration camps? Why is Palestine a cause for the liberal-Left, but not, for instance, China, the Sudan, Zimbabwe or North Korea? Why can't those who say they support the Palestinian cause tell you what type of Palestine they would like to see? After the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington why were you as likely to read that a sinister conspiracy of Jews controlled American or British foreign policy in a liberal literary journal as in a neo-Nazi rag? It's easy to know what the Left is fighting against – the evils of Bush and corporations – but what and, more to the point, who are they fighting for?
As he tours the follies of the Left, Nick Cohen asks us to reconsider what it means to be liberal in this confused and topsy-turvy time. With the angry satire of Swift, he reclaims the values of democracy and solidarity that united the movement against fascism, and asks: What's Left?"
> this is the mindset of conservatives since inherently you are being steadfast against a changing world. The idea already has conflict set and the world is crumbling around you as you get older and wish for whatever idea of right you had.
Totally. Corey Robin has been pushing (in his book and elsewhere) the thesis that conservatism has always essentially been about preserving the hierarchy of the past. And this is necessarily a project of oppression and occasional violence. Nice New Yorker writeup here.
https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-Burke/dp/0199959110
They are not about reasonable, work together, get a functioning government.
They are about "oppose anything the Democrats suggest, all the time."
(Except for trade deals, of course.)
This is a pretty good book about it. It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Right-Went-Wrong-Conservatism/dp/1476763801
https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X
These are 3 examples of significant literary works on American politics written in recent times. And although I only own one, I'm probably going to buy "It's even worse than it looks" I'm pretty sure they attest the asymmetrical polarization of American politics today, that allows extremists to thrive, whereas they couldn't have in previous decades.
The problem with Fox News, is for a major news organization, even they have a mixed record on reporting actual "facts". Edit: To be fair, CNN and MSNBC also sometimes misinform their viewers as well, but not nearly as bad as Fox does.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/
A study was done that found that people who don't watch news at all, were better informed on factually correct information, than people who religiously watched Fox News. One of our biggest media outlets in the nation, is routinely misinforming it's viewers on matters of national significance.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#443b3c5b12ab
Most the Right Wing media sources, play on stereotypes and emotionally driven headlines rather than factually reporting the news.
This is why now, in a country that has always honored Freedom of Speech, is now taking issue with "Fake News" making it's way into peoples facebook streams. Because a lot of media sites are now regularly failing to report factually correct information, and it's causing the electorate to vote for candidates who are consistently factually incorrect in what they say. And a major country like the United States, who leaders consistently believe in and base policy off of factually incorrect information, I don't see how that can possibly be good for my country, or the world for that matter.
It is no mere coincidence that for a Conservative party, globally speaking, only in America is the Republicans the only major Conservative party in a Western Democracy, that outright denies the realities of Climate Change.
Perhaps, but the average person also the sort of idiot who watches reality TV. That's the problem.
And it's frankly ridiculous to cast Democrats and Republicans as equally crazy. False equivalence. California is run by competent people who live in the real world, even if you disagree with their specific policy priorities. States like Kansas are run by people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old and the way to stop teenage pregnancy is to not tell them how to avoid it.
Even if you think the deregulation of licensing organizations should be prioritized, for example, you can't possible see the Republicans as a rationally equivalent organization. They've gone off the deep end.
Don't take my word for it. Ask actual conservatives.
https://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
I would encourage you to consider the work of Sam Wang at Princeton. Also, nonpartisan experts like Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein wrote in 2012 about the issue of Republicans changing the rules to protect partisan Republican advantages in legislatures. This research is not conclusive, but there is ample evidence to support my contention that the benefits of incumbency and redrawing of district boundaries gave Republicans advantages in the 2012 Congressional election.
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/
http://election.princeton.edu/2013/02/03/slaying-the-gerrymander/
http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
A book I just finished reading for my AP Gov & Pol class seems to be relevant here. It outlines some key congressional issues, especially the overuse of filibusters and failed old tactics we keep trying to reuse. It was a pretty good read, especially for something so critical. I'll put up a pdf of my summary i had to write for it if you guys want.
EDIT: Added a few words.
He very clearly grabs her in this video.
She immediately posts picture of bruises on her arm
Washington Post reporter Ben Terris saw it happnen
Michelle Fields is a very conservative reporter who works for Brietbart, a severely right wing conservative propaganda newspaper. She literally just wrote a book shitting all over the Democratic establishment in Washington. She probably would have voted for Trump, she may still vote for Trump. Why would she lie? Nominally she and Trump are on the same team. She very clearly had nothing to gain and everything to lose. There's just no reason to not inherently believe her given she has no incentive to lie, on top of the preponderance of evidence.
What a judge decides is irrelevant, a court decision doesn't change a fact. If you're not aware that courts can make the wrong decision then you're woefully ignorant of history.
)0; luckly i saw on twitter that the reviews of a book on amazon was getting crushed by Trump supporters! imagine my surprise when i went to read them and got my tendies fix!https://www.amazon.com/Barons-Beltway-Washington-Elite---Overthrow/dp/0553447556/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466813957&sr=1-1&keywords=barons+of+the+beltway
Sheldon Wolin is a political philosopher of the first order; he has educated some of the more contemporary greats as well. His book about inverted totalitarianism and managed democracy is here.
See also: Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism
Most people in canada are politically unsophisticated and aren't educated enough to answer. Get off the subs for the illusioned and uneducated (which is what reddit is in a nutshell).
http://therealnews.com/t2/
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X
Well educated people don't see it happening. Hedges and Wolin have spoken about this topic at length.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/069114589X
If revolution is going to happen its going to happen elsewhere first, former national security advisors are worried about the non north american peoples primarily but they are going full blown into 'protect the rich' mode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY
I've heard that before.
https://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Democratic-Majority-John-Judis/dp/0743254783/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=democratic+majority&qid=1566270263&s=gateway&sr=8-1
Yes, a smart Democratic party would exploit it. But its one of the things they can't actually push because it might work.
Democrats are operating of this book and have for some time. Hence, they dream of flipping Texas using the Hispanic vote and locking in a permanent majority.
https://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Democratic-Majority-John-Judis/dp/0743254783
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/the-coming-democratic-majority-might-be-coming-a-lot-slower-than-you-think.html
How Nonviolence Protects the State
here ya go
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0896087727
The proxy wars were definitely a part of it. Iran-Contra for one, Afghanistan for another. Reagan backed the mujahideen in order to "fight" Russia, but these are the same people who then became al Qaeda.
He lowered the tax on the wealthiest from 70% to 50%, then to 28%, reducing the Federal revenue and more than doubling the national debt. The US went from the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the world under his administration. The average Americans wages have never recovered. While he made the corporate class richer, he did nothing to prevent the massive offshoring of jobs to other countries.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
He was a homophobic bigot who deliberately ignored the AIDS crisis, the crack epidemic, and anything else that didn't directly affect white "Christian" Americans.
He escalated Nixon's "War on Drugs", sold weapons to our enemies, dramatically increased military spending by 35%, feeding the massive military-industrial complex we have today.
I could go in, but I'm on vacation and don't need to get my blood-pressure up over this asshole. Suffice it to say, I have despised Reagan since he was in office, and honestly believe he was the beginning of the end for the working class in America.
If you are interested in reading more from the "anti-Reagan" perspective, give this book a read.
Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy https://www.amazon.com/dp/1416597638/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_ArxrDbKM8686Y
You should check out Tear Down This Myth if you want a really great break-down on the subject that's told in an interesting way.
Sure, I have met lots of Muslims. I live in Manhattan so I interact with Muslims every day. In my experience, they all seem to be lovely people.
I am not basing my opinion on the majority of Muslims in the world on my own limited personal experience.
I am basing my opinion on the majority of Muslims in the world on Pew Research, the gold standard in public opinion polling.
Pew did an exhaustive study where they did face to face interviews with 38,000 Muslims in 39 separate countries over the course of four years.
You can read the 200+ page report for yourself. I certainly did. I then broke down the results of their research here. It's about 20 minutes long, which is much longer than it took me to read the report.
Muslims integrate well into a Western population when they are less than 2% of the population. As the percentage of the population rises, problems arise.
I also analyzed the data collected by Samuel P. Huntington in his book The Clash of Civilizations. I also broke down his research in about 20 minutes here.
Let me know if you have any questions.
WWI and WWII were perfect example of white people fighting white people. It was a political and power's conflict. Now everything is settled and there is no need to acquire more power or territory in state level (at least for developed states) except for acquisition of resources. But you are also right, there was also cultural conflict going on. But now it is purely about that. You must be aware of Huntington's Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. If not then you should read it.
> I think you have a misunderstanding of the crash. I would recommend the book courage to act from Former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke
Thanks, I'll check it out in a few months.
What I was getting at, when calling it like a Ponzi, is the idea that the solution to the last recession (I'm going to call it this now, instead of a depression, like I did before), is that the Government, just put a band-aid on the problem with QE. I think the rates are so low right now, to encourage spending, that when the next shock hits, there will be no more play room to address it other than printing more money.
Ponzi was definitely a wrong word to use, but it was the only thing that comes to mind when the current system is based on Consumption. You need more consumption in the future then you had in the past or you have a recession or a Depression. That strikes me a Ponzi, in that constant consumption is impossible, before something gives or breaks.
> globalization monetary system?
The whole shebang. Everything.
> Magic of the market. (Oil is still down)
Oil was just a random example I used, to display any variable of causes attributable to "Reasons why XYZ happened, happens, is happening" when economist or journalist try to explain how or why.
Pension system, I feel, will not be fixed. I'm more pessimistic then you are.
Health care needs to become Universal, but again, I'm more pessimistic then you are and don't think it will happen.
Refugees are what I think will cause the next "big thing". WW3? Collapse of the system..I have no idea...10 years, 20 years from now...I have no idea. I think two books, very controversial, but worth reading regarding this matter are The clash of Civilizations and Culture Matters by Samuel Huntington. Helping people help themselves is the only way to truly help someone and the manner of letting people flow undocumented into countries is not going to end well for those people or those countries.
> Each generation will adapt to the changes before it. Just like we used to have 80% workforce in agriculture. Now we have 2%. The next generation will do something else (always)
Definitely...but at what cost? Revolution? Civil War? Civil Discord? War? Change does equal Reaction....how will they react? (in general, well and good, or violently and with fear?) I guess depending on how fast the change happens will determine how violent the reaction will be.
>
> Timescales. Maybe, but Whether the system collapse in 100 years or 1000 years matter. The system has thus far shown resiliency to large external shocks (2008). Idk if it will survive a ww3 though
Agreed. So long as the resiliency is Real which would lead to assuming what the Government did to solve the last shock was applying a band aid to a necessary amputation. We will see when the next shock happens, 5 10 100 or 1000 years from now
Library in the other end of the room. And it is three:
http://www.amazon.com/Shake-Hands-Devil-Failure-Humanity/dp/0786715103
http://www.amazon.com/Clash-Civilizations-Remaking-World-Order/dp/1451628978/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375278381&sr=1-1&keywords=clash+samuel
http://www.amazon.com/Dream-Ding-Village-Yan-Lianke/dp/B005FOG3X4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375278398&sr=1-1&keywords=ding+village
— "The Obama Deception"
— "War by Deception" (Israeli connection to 9/11)
— "International Law?" (a critique of globalism)
— "David Icke Live at Oxford Union"
— On Blowback and Interventionism (short; highly recommend)
— On the Prussian Education model: (first short), (second short), (third short)
— "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas Woods (essay summary: here)
— "Liberty Defined" by Ron Paul (online PDF version: here)
— "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins (online PDF version: here and here)
Liberty Defined by Ron Paul https://smile.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/1455501441/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1VT8J25TDUGQM&keywords=liberty+defined+ron+paul&qid=1555784579&s=gateway&sprefix=liberty+defined%2Caps%2C140&sr=8-1
Relevant book:
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218
To me, the best was "why socialism works" https://www.amazon.com/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1498567671&sr=1-1&keywords=why+socialism+works
Why Socialism Works https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521531218/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_MRaRBbEVFXRBD
Archives for the links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, Now with more commenting ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218
I doubt he was born in the US but it really doesn’t matter at this point. Trump is erasing everything Obama did while in office so it’s almost like it never happened anyway. Just like to bring up the birth thing to trigger people like you.
Those fawning reviews on Amazon are something else! I can't shake the suspicion that the Trump's pay people to buy the book and post reviews written by the Trump PR team.
https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/154608603X/ref=acr_dpx_hist_5?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=five_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar
>The thing that I love about the Trump family is their honesty. The bad reviews come from liberal haters that had once claimed that they were the party of love and acceptance. They were that party, until the the truth was told about how they want socialism. I don’t know about anyone else but when the truth is told by people like Donald Trump Jr. people on the left get very angry. Sometimes the TRUTH hurts. If anyone as an adult can’t handle the TRUTH, they are ignorant cry babies. Go cry somewhere else while the TRUMP family saves our great country. Donald Jr. is a great man with honesty and integrity . Thank you for the TRUTH!!
Seriously, they've already been trying to convince people that. See Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage or anything written by Ann Coulter.
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550437/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1484178189&sr=1-1&keywords=michael+savage+liberalism+is+a+mental+disorder
Have you ever heard of Michael Savage?
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Michael-Savage/dp/1595550437
Rush Limbaugh on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/RushLimbaughAndTheEIBNetwork/posts/10154025327167906
On his website:
http://dailyrushbo.com/rush-liberals-democrats-are-genuinely-mentally-ill/
Anne Coulter:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/12/17/ann_coulter_liberalism_is_on_the_spectrum_of_mental_illness.html
Conservative Radio Host Wayne Allyn Root:
https://twitter.com/wayneroot/status/764139954561687552?lang=en
It's also on Infowars but I don't know what stature they really hold:
https://www.infowars.com/new-york-legislator-proves-liberalism-is-a-mental-disorder/
Would you agree that these are some fairly influential voices?
They need mental help.
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550437
Michael Savage coined it, even wrote a book about it
His new book is Trump's War
My comment was meant to be humorous, just as the title of Michael Savage’s book was meant to be funny.
https://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Michael-Savage/dp/1595550437
Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder https://www.amazon.com/dp/1595550437/
Analyzing gnzlgrc
https://www.amazon.com/Brainwashed-Universities-Indoctrinate-Americas-Youth/dp/1595559795
Pretty sure it's this one. The year seems right.
Look into Ben Shapiro's book Brainwashed. His strategy was to speak conservatively while in class, but would write his exams as if he were far left / socialist. His exams were graded anonymously so teachers couldn't single him out.
Oh, my goodness gracious, there are literally thousands of articles on Google on this, dozens of books by conservative intellectuals on how leftists, starting with boomers, took over American college campuses and stymy careers of conservative academics.
They've successfully brainwashed generations of students - I was one until I got out into the real world.
If you're so lacking in intellectual curiosity, here are some suggestions:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/05/01/higher-education-has-a-strong-leftist-bias-but-not-enough-for-one-prof/#ecf1e2576d7c
"A good many educators take seriously the idea that teaching is a political activity and accordingly feel justified in using their classrooms as platforms for spreading their social, economic, and philosophical beliefs. They want to act as “change agents” who will improve the world.
Most of those educators have been imbued with a leftist cast of mind – hostile to capitalism, private property, and anything that stands in the way of their utopian visions of a just society brought about through government power. Instances like the recent ones at UC Santa Barbara (where a professor physically attacked a student who was peacefully protesting abortion) and Eastern Connecticut (where a writing professor went off on a rant about how evil Republicans are) are pretty common."
https://www.leadershipinstitute.org/Writings/?ID=2
"Leftist Control on Campus
Overwhelmingly leftist faculty.
Overwhelmingly leftist administrators who actively suppress conservative activities and refuse to address grievances from students who suffer persecution for their conservative beliefs.
Leftist domination of most student government associations.
Leftist domination of "student courts" which decide issues regarding student government actions and persecute students for activities in behalf of conservative principles.
Leftist Indoctrination on Campus
Large numbers of courses presented that explicitly in their catalog descriptions push leftist ideology, but no balance of conservative principles offered in the curriculum.
Indoctrination of students in class by faculty who promote socialist ideas and other leftist priorities.
Leftist faculty using their class time to preach politics instead of teaching the topic at hand.
Faculty who express in class blatant contempt of conservative ideas.
Assignment by faculty of one-sided textbooks and readings which systematically push leftist ideas and denigrate or ignore conservative ideas.
Leftist domination of almost all official campus newspapers, which are funded by taxpayers, compulsory student fees, or unwitting donors to the colleges and universities.
Large numbers of leftist student organizations, supported by major, national leftist organizations.
Leftist monopolies of most journalism faculties.
Programs which present overwhelmingly leftist off-campus speakers to the students.
Overwhelmingly leftist speakers provided to speak to graduates and their families at graduation ceremonies.
College and university libraries packed with leftist books and magazines but few if any books or publications which promote conservative principles.
Compulsory freshman orientation programs and "sensitivity training" designed by leftists to undermine traditional values.
Mandatory seminars for students on how to have "safe sex" with little or no mention of the possibility or merits of abstinence or marriage.
Enforced diversity in every area except for the adherence to or the teaching of conservative principles."
https://townhall.com/columnists/danieldoherty/2011/11/19/avoiding-leftist-indoctrination-at-american-colleges-and-universities-n797669
"One of the greatest dilemmas facing American students today is the perennial threat of leftist indoctrination on college campuses. In recent years, institutions of higher learning – which have historically been places for enlightened thought and dissenting opinions – have increasingly become breeding grounds for radical liberalism. College courses, which are often taught by biased professors who espouse leftist ideology, fail to adequately challenge undergraduate students and often leave many of them woefully unprepared for the real world."
Some full books:
https://www.amazon.com/Brainwashed-Universities-Indoctrinate-Americas-Youth/dp/1595559795
https://www.amazon.com/Indoctrination-Lefts-Against-Academic-Freedom/dp/1594031908
https://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Past-Future-Michael-Harrington/dp/1611453356
Most of the suggestions in this thread are specifically socialism from a marxist perspective. I think you might find Socialism: Past and Future by Michael Harrington an engaging and insightful read on socialism from another perspective.
It isn't just right-wing talking heads, though. In the book "Socialism: Past and Future," by Michael Harrington, there is an extensive analysis of all the different kinds of Socialism, and Michael Harrington himself acknowledges that even Socialists have difficulty defining exactly what Socialism is, and he was a Socialist.
http://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Past-Future-Michael-Harrington/dp/1611453356
Michael Harrington's Socialism: Past and Future is an excellent primer (though it assumes some familiarity with the topic and players at hand). I don't know that there can be a "best" book on socialism, but that's generally what I recommend to friends.
Harrington isn't primarily concerned with picking apart capitalism here, and it won't serve as a refutation of Friedman if that's what you're looking for -- it stays basically within the bounds of what the title suggests -- but it's a well-written, valuable read nevertheless.
Nope
The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left https://www.amazon.com/dp/1621573486/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_q2HoDbJFG0T0V
[The Big Lie by Dinesh D'Souza] (https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486).
lol oh no what kind of monster would do that
[I wish it were nothing](The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left https://www.amazon.com/dp/1621573486/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_V1TNzbFDHQPZW)
> Comparing a rabble of halfwits ... to actual Nazi brownshirts — a nationwide, organized paramilitary force — is risible.
Somebody forgot to tell this guy...
>> Yes, there is a fascist threat in America—but that threat is from the Left and the Democratic Party. The Democratic left has an ideology virtually identical with fascism and routinely borrows tactics of intimidation and political terror from the Nazi Brownshirts. Dinesh D'Souza, The Big Lie
Yours is the perception of that frog that doesn't realize the water he's in is being brought to a boil, until it's too late. "Risible", I know.
Why not try to reveal the similarities between Nazi party policy and modern democrats? Its a saltmine of full of butthurts and reees.
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
http://observer.com/2017/05/what-is-neo-fascism-democrats-mussolini/
https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-Secret-History-American/dp/B0018O22WG
http://www.returnofkings.com/58601/why-modern-leftists-are-fascists
https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/08/03/fascist-roots-american-left/
Here is his new one , another home run imo
[Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?]
(https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8)
>From the bestselling author of What's the Matter With Kansas, a scathing look at the standard-bearers of liberal politics -- a book that asks: what's the matter with Democrats?
>It is a widespread belief among liberals that if only Democrats can continue to dominate national elections, if only those awful Republicans are beaten into submission, the country will be on the right course.
>But this is to fundamentally misunderstand the modern Democratic Party. Drawing on years of research and first-hand reporting, Frank points out that the Democrats have done little to advance traditional liberal goals: expanding opportunity, fighting for social justice, and ensuring that workers get a fair deal. Indeed, they have scarcely dented the free-market consensus at all. This is not for lack of opportunity: Democrats have occupied the White House for sixteen of the last twenty-four years, and yet the decline of the middle class has only accelerated. Wall Street gets its bailouts, wages keep falling, and the free-trade deals keep coming.
Read Listen Liberal if you really believe Dems aren't neoliberal.
>1. The Democratic party, for some insane reason, followed the Republican party to the right. I dunno what the strategy behind that was, but if they had not, they would likely have control of most State governments + Congress.
Read or listen to Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? by Thomas Frank
cool. Thanks for acknowledging my point and stating your disagreement in a diplomatic way. I think we are getting to a real discourse here.
My first disagreement with your statement is I don't think fighting republicans and making democrats better is either or first or second type of situation. In fact, considering how the democrats are always chasing the republicans rightward often losing big in election seasons, I think that making the democratic party a stronger one that better represents and inspires its people will stop the rightward shift of both parties.
Because policy polling shows the democratic platform is way more popular than the republican one and actually on most polices, the majority of American's are left of the democratic party but the constant losing of ground on policy, the appearance of elitism and corruption, the focus on identity politics which doesn't resonate compared to economic issues, and the fact that economically the middle and working classes have been devastated by republicans AND Democrats are some of the reasons why Democrats keep losing. That and the Democrats constant shift rightward, because when voters are presented with the options of republican and republican light, they'll go with the real thing.
I do agree the republicans are worse and we should fight and obstruct their agenda I also don't think investing energy in trying to change the republicans is the most prudent strategy.
There is a cogent argument made by Thomas Frank in his book Listen Liberal that the democratic party abandoning the working class in favor of the professional class is what led to them losing the majority of legislatures over the last 40 some years. So the way I see it, if the democratic party can take on the role of being the party of the people again, in a meaningful not rhetorical, way they will win seats and if the republicans want to stand a chance as a party they'll have to follow the democrats lead.
Continued support for the military industrial complex
Bold and expressed support for the war in Iraq
Pushing for the war In Syria
Continued support for more wars abroad, even adding 4 more major conflicts under the Obama presidency
Continued support for the war on drugs
Continued support for the prison industrial complex
Continued support for predatory lending industries
refusal to support a living wage
refusal to support single payer / medicare for all / universal healthcare
refusal to support extending public education beyond k-12
growing support within the party to move towards greater and greater privatization of public services
Enactment of the ACA, a healthcare proposal initially concocted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
refusal to break up the big banks
refusal to support or truly fight for a carbon tax
a continual decline of support for unionized labor
The continued and increasing acceptance of legalized bribery / money in politics
A general abandonment of leftist economic policy
The democrats do pander very frequently to leftist ideals, but they are either extremely ineffective at governing toward their ideals or are disingenuous. In my view I lean toward the latter, mostly due to the blatant and transparent acceptance of enormous sums of money from special interest groups. It makes them look like they are paid to lose/throw the fight - but still pander to the left and win votes.
This criticism of the Democratic party as moving rightward by no means excused the disgusting sprint toward facism of the Republican party, but the Democrats have been trying for years to run away from being branded with associations to FDR or New Deal style politics. For a very thorough analysis, check out this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391
> I'm familiar with this popular understanding of what nationalism is but I'm saying it doesn't really line up with scholarship on the ideology and it's history. Read Nationalism by Anthony D. Smith or Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson in order to get a basic introduction to the subject as they're usually among the standard college textbooks used in relevant courses. I've said this elsewhere in the thread but nationalism at it's most base level is a belief in the existence of nations, nation states and the concept of self-determination. A nation is an amorphous political concept that can be based on a large number of things from a perception of shared ethnicity to shared geography to shared history. The basis for the creation of a nation is known as national identity. Practically every country in the 21st century , professes a national identity and when a country does this it is known as a nation state (the wikipedia article for this concept is fairly narrow as it focuses on states that tie national identity to ethnicity and all but ignores civic nationalism and to some extent left wing nationalism )
None of this is about how the word is used in a socio-political sense though. And there is a very good argument that the popular view is the current correct view of the word's meaning.
> The United States is a nation state as...
I agree with most of your 2nd paragraph, but I would argue that for most people it's an expression of American Patriotism.
> Nationalism is further reinforced by national symbols ... ...Thus displaying any kind of flag associated with a nation (state or otherwise) is a display of nationalist sentiment.
Or patriotic sentiment.
> With that out of the way let's go back to the Olympics. I stated that the modern Olympic games themselves were founded upon nationalism and the belief that athletic competition offered a healthy outlet for duking out national rivalries as an alternative to conflict.
Agree.
> hat is why the Olympics themselves are an orgy of national symbolism from the Parade of Nations, the fact that athletes represent their nations at all instead of themselves, the playing of national anthems at medal ceremonies, etc. etc.
Agree
> With all that in mind rooting for your nation's athletes at the Olympics is an expression of nationalist sentiment.
Disagree. Most people who participate in and watch the Olympics are more than ready to acknowledge when their country isn't the best at something, and when other countries do well. That's Patriotism when they root for their team under those circumstances.
> Here's a couple of articles I was able to find on the subject after a two second Google search since I don't feel like digging up old academic articles. Hell, here's the perspective of a Communist (i.e. someone who actually rejects nationalism since they believe in the dismantling of all states and national identities).
All three are opinion pieces. The Vox one is actually talking about patriotism, but has fallen into the Nationalism/patriotism 'synonym trap'. Communist countries officially reject nationalism, but in practice are just as nationalistic as every other country.
> Nationalism in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with blind loyalty to a particular government although chauvinistic nationalism does indeed manifest itself that way.
Not completely blind, but it does encourage unhealthy behaviors towards others. That behavior isn't implied in patriotism.
> In fact nationalism isn't contingent on the existence of a nation-state
Correct. Post WWI there was a lot of nationalism from ethnic and cultural groups that hadn't had their own country in centuries. However, gaining a country was their goal. A good example actually is post-colonial Africa.
> government and doesn't even necessarily advocate for one.
Actually, they always do eventually.
> Just look at the history of Black nationalism in the USA of which only a few strands (known as Black Separatism) advocated the creation of an African American state.
One would argue that the factions not advocating for separate statehood were actually patriots.
​
I'm familiar with this popular understanding of what nationalism is but I'm saying it doesn't really line up with scholarship on the ideology and it's history. Read Nationalism by Anthony D. Smith or Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson in order to get a basic introduction to the subject as they're usually among the standard college textbooks used in relevant courses. I've said this elsewhere in the thread but nationalism at it's most base level is a belief in the existence of nations, nation states and the concept of self-determination. A nation is an amorphous political concept that can be based on a large number of things from a perception of shared ethnicity to shared geography to shared history. The basis for the creation of a nation is known as national identity. Practically every country in the 21st century , professes a national identity and when a country does this it is known as a nation state (the wikipedia article for this concept is fairly narrow as it focuses on states that tie national identity to ethnicity and all but ignores civic nationalism and to some extent left wing nationalism )
The United States is a nation state as, like most every other modern country, it has a national identity. The key however is in defining what American national identity is. Trump and many of his followers likely understand American national identity to be rooted in whiteness and Christianity while most other Americans understand American national identity as being rooted in a form of civic (not ethnic) nationalism which embodies a shared sense of republican (not the political party but the system of government) ideals and essential freedoms. This is bolstered by a shared national culture that manifests itself in things like Thanksgiving which is based on and celebrates a national myth and was established with the express purpose of fostering a common national culture. Celebrating Thanksgiving is literally participation in American national identity and therefore an expression of American nationalism.
Nationalism is further reinforced by national symbols for example flags and national anthems. The concept of every nation (not only nation-states but stateless nations like the Ainu as well) having a flag is something something that emerged concurrently with the notion of nationalism because the newly emerging nations needed symbols to tie their identities to. Thus displaying any kind of flag associated with a nation (state or otherwise) is a display of nationalist sentiment.
With that out of the way let's go back to the Olympics. I stated that the modern Olympic games themselves were founded upon nationalism and the belief that athletic competition offered a healthy outlet for duking out national rivalries as an alternative to conflict. That is why the Olympics themselves are an orgy of national symbolism from the Parade of Nations, the fact that athletes represent their nations at all instead of themselves, the playing of national anthems at medal ceremonies, etc. etc. With all that in mind rooting for your nation's athletes at the Olympics is an expression of nationalist sentiment. But don't take my word for it! Here's a couple of articles I was able to find on the subject after a two second Google search since I don't feel like digging up old academic articles. Hell, here's the perspective of a Communist (i.e. someone who actually rejects nationalism since they believe in the dismantling of all states and national identities).
Nationalism in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with blind loyalty to a particular government although chauvinistic nationalism does indeed manifest itself that way. In fact nationalism isn't contingent on the existence of a nation-state or government and doesn't even necessarily advocate for one. Just look at the history of Black nationalism in the USA of which only a few strands (known as Black Separatism) advocated the creation of an African American state.
As far as patriotism goes it's a tricky question but while not every display of patriotism is nationalism the vast majority are as they acknowledge the existence of or loyalty to a nation or nation-state and more often than not incorporate national symbols such as flags. Remember that a nation is not solely the government but the amorphous political body of individuals who share some common identity so when professing to "love a nation" someone could just as easily be talking about the people as opposed to the government.
Not totally accurate, but if you’re looking for popular science/entertainment that’s somewhat anthropology related.... Kathy Reichs is a board certified forensic anthropologist and has written a lot of books. They (she) are what the TV show Bones was based on.
Stiff by Mary Roach is a good one
For nonfiction, and if you’re interested in things highly relevant politically now, these are some incredible works on immigration.
Becoming Legal
They Leave Their Kidneys in the Fields
I’m pretty sure this author is a sociologist, but still a great book. imagined communities
Ironic, since Noam Chomsky apparently considers himself an anarchist, and wrote a book called, "Chomsky on Anarchism."
http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Anarchism-Noam/dp/1904859208/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324305240&sr=8-1
There's also a collection of some of his writings/interviews on libertarian socialism: Chomsky on Anarchism.
And his essay: Notes on Anarchsim
Vote for us you insufferable bigots, and by the way here’s a guide to your future: https://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Democratic-Majority-John-Judis/dp/0743254783
Intersectionality forever!!!!
Which one's were false? Please you took the time to respond, so back it up. Also, does this book among others I've read count?
> I hope you recognize that this is a politically charged statement, and the implicit danger is not necessarily grounded in reality.
I do realize that, and it's the reality I saw and experienced with my own eyes in France, Germany, and Italy only last year. I was in there when a series of terror attacks were carried out.
> conservative media hysteria
Not sure about this, because I rarely go to conservative news sites, preferring to get my news from the BBC, DW, France24, AlJazeera, and RT (yes I know some are propaganda, but I like to view the US through a critical lens).
What I have noticed is that there is a notable absence of any reporting about various anti-immigrant movements throughout Europe (especially PEGIDA in Germany). We were scheduled to attend a rally in Dresden (one of my friends in DE is an activist, and was in Leipzig in 1989 too), and not a word was mentioned anywhere I could find.
> Islam vs Western Liberalism conflict is almost a sideshow compared to what really needs to be solved
They're both grave situations. I don't completely disagree with you. But it would not be acknowledging reality to dismiss what one can see with one's own eyes and hear with one's own ears.
An anecdote: looking across the Lusatian Neisse River from Zgorzelec, Poland to Görlitz, Germany, I saw dozens of full hijab-wearing women and their children lining the banks on the German side. (Zero on the Polish side.) Anyone who says this is not a full-scale invasion of Europe is deluding themselves.
Yes, there are some refugees actually in need (the aforementioned women and children), but the vast, vast majority of people I saw were bodybuilder males aged 18-35, and they comprised roaming gangs through the squares of every town and village I visited.
You mentioned that secular society doesn't share our Christian values. I agree. Secular society also usually doesn't drive trucks over people they disagree with. (Not yet, anyway.)
Let's not be disingenuous nor put our heads in the sand about what is happening -- it's a clash of civilizations that has been happening for 1300 years.
I'd love to just "get along" and not be violent, just like the Pope says. But we're to be "wise as serpents" as well.
And you should read this: (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218)
seems like Don Jr is the one who's Triggered.
Wow, multiple replies from the same person.
Have you read Donald Trump Jr's new book? I think you'd like it. It's about you.
Yes, it has been.
You don't understand sarcasm do you? Still waiting for you to tell what's incorrect in the video... You should read this book. Nazi literally means national socialist. Socialism is a leftist ideology and always has been. https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
Is the desouza book popular?
Let's see:
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1517606494&sr=8-1&keywords=the+big+lie+dinesh+dsouza
Well, well, it's a best seller here on Amazon. Why wouldn't your library carry it?
Sorry your library may carry something you find politically objectionable. Maybe you should stop going, you might see a Glenn Beck book right next to the Al Franken book.
They actually were leftists...https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1621573486/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502575410&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=the+big+lie&dpPl=1&dpID=51oWHzLRUML&ref=plSrch
Read the book "Listen Liberal" from noted conservative hell brand, Thomas Frank. There is lucid argument how the Democratic Party abandoned the "working class."
>Obama had his cabinet picked by CitiGroup
Have to stop reading once you say something I know is bullshit. This is false.
If anyone wants a non-reddit, educated understanding of the topic at hand, please read "Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?". This is where Dems lost there way. And believe it or not, some of the blame is on the American people who fail to show up.
I can't tell if this a bot response, or someone throwing their hands up in the air before even making an effort to have a discussion. If I'm not worth the time that's fine, but I do recommend that book. Here's a link. There are also plenty of interviews on Youtube where the author talks about details from the book. I promise it's all more worthwhile than talking to random dudes online for fake internet points.
How is that a "straw man"? For it to be a straw man fallacy, 123 would have to be involved in some kind of debate, which he is not. 123 has only made a simple statement, distorted slightly by sarcasm but still easily interpretable.
A straw man takes the form of "well you people think A, which is absurd because XYZ", when in fact nobody has been claiming A. That's a straw man.
Absolutely nothing about what 123 did is a straw man fallacy. Absolutely nothing about what 123 did is any type of fallacy. He called out Noam Chomsky, who is in fact an humanist, for not having spoken up on the situation.
> In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population.
-- Noam Chomsky
> The intellectual tradition is one of servility to power and if I didn’t betray it I’d be ashamed of myself
-- Noam Chomsky
> Education must provide the opportunities for self-fulfillment; it can at best provide a rich and challenging environment for the individual to explore, in his own way.
-- Noam Chomsky
> The only justification for repressive institutions is material and cultural deficit. But such institutions, at certain stages of history, perpetuate and produce such a deficit, and even threaten human survival.
-- Noam Chomsky, ibid
I second this.
Lakoff is a linguist. Don't think of an elephant should be required reading for every progressive.
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371071793&sr=8-1&keywords=inverted+totalitarianism
> Also, why is it your assertion that a liberal mentality is a mental disorder? What makes it inherently wrong (in your opinion) to align one's views with a liberal agenda?
A good read would be this book, it gives a pretty good idea of why people call liberalism a "mental disorder".
From one of the reviews, I don't agree with everything said in this review (not all of it is even discussed in the book and some is blown out of proportion but whatever, I don't feel like writing a thousand word essay on the book, but some of the talking points of the book are in there to give you a rough idea:
> I won’t give the entire book away, but here are a few contemporary examples (some discussed in the book) as to why liberalism is a mental disorder:
>
> Feminists will say nothing about the mistreatment of women in Muslim majority countries (i.e., honor killings, female genital mutilation, stoning for adultery, forced marriages, divinely-sanctioned wife beatings, etc.) but will complain around the clock about President Trump’s “treatment of women.” How do you explain this? Liberalism is a mental disorder.
>
> The LGBT community will embrace Islam, hold rallies against “Islamophobia,” and invite millions of Muslim “refugees” to live in Western countries. The problem is that if these Muslims were to seize power in Western countries, they would murder the gays and lesbians and throw them down a well (homosexuality is forbidden in Islam). Why does the LGBT community unite with the Islamists who would destroy them? Liberalism is a mental disorder.
>
> The liberals, who are pro-women’s rights and pro-gay rights, support the “Palestinians,” who want to destroy the State of Israel, which is pro-women’s rights and pro-gay rights. Yet if the “Palestinians” were to invade Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, then women’s rights and gay rights would disappear from the Middle East. Why are the libs cheerleaders for Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Islamist groups? Liberalism is a mental disorder.
>
> The liberals in Britain allow the Islamists to hold rallies where they call for Sharia to replace English law, while banning critics of the Islamic jihad from entering Britain (e.g., Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Michael Savage, etc.). In other words, those who want to destroy Britain are given a free pass in Britain, while those who want to save Britain from future destruction are banned from entering the country. How do you explain this? Liberalism is a mental disorder.
>
> The liberals praise Yasser Arafat as a “freedom fighter” against the Israelis, even though, as Savage notes, “Arafat was a monster. This walking obscenity invented airline hijacking, hostage taking, school massacres, and suicide bombings. He kept the Palestinians in a prison of moral, spiritual, and economic poverty. He embezzled their money and, during his final years, skimmed more than $2 million a month to line his pockets.” (117). After Arafat’s death, the libs in the media eulogized him to the point that “you’d think this mass murderer was Abe Lincoln in a turban” or “George Washington reincarnate.” And Arafat’s “Hitleresque view of the Jews” was scrubbed from the media, too. Even Gerhard Schroeder, whom Savage calls “a socialist weasel,” said “it was not granted to Yasser Arafat to complete his life’s work” to which Savage replies, “What work? The annihilation of Israel?” Later on, Savage asks, “Why does the American media sit by silently, or worse, glorify this mass murderer? Because they hate the Judeo-Christian values upon which we as a nation were founded. Therefore, they vilify America and Israel and lionize vermin like Arafat.” (128) How do you explain this? Easy: Liberalism is a mental disorder.
>
> This is only scratching the surface. There are dozens of other examples one could give. Savage says regularly on his show that whenever you hear libs do or say something that baffles you to the core and for which no rational explanation is possible, then all you need to do to regain your sanity is to say “Liberalism is a mental disorder” and you’ll feel much better.
>
>
Stalinism (an authoritarian form of socialism) is the most well known, and reviled, because of Cold War propaganda, but it worked pretty well. It's really the only form of socialism people know to have been fully implemented (Mao too but I don't know enough to comment on that) and since it was pretty evil in the beginning, people assume every form of socialism is inherently evil. Cuba has done pretty damn well despite being under intense embargos. Give Michael Harrington's book a read for a good recap of the history of socialism.
Then there's capitialism, which is a precursor to socialism, as it was a necessary evil (Industrial Revolution, for instance) to get us to be able to produce goods at a massive clip. I think in the beginning capitalism was fine for what needed to be done but it always ends in monopoly and incredible disparity because it relies on wealthy people being "well meaning" and "good" when we know they're not. Capitalism keeps people ruled by elites and allows us to...elect fascists like we have now. Nothing is perfect but I'm just asking you to challenge your preconceived notions of capitalism.
Apologize if this was hastily written, I'm about to drive somewhere.
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
Sim. Um óbvio plágio deste livro.
E provavelmente foi inspirado [neste] (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Socialism-Works-Harrison-Lievesley/dp/1521531218/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504059913&sr=8-1&keywords=why+socialism+works).
Please read:
"The big lie: exposing the Nazi roots of the American left by Dinesh D'Souza"
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
Les og lær om nasjonalsosialisme, kommunisme, fascisme og sosialisme.
Denne glimrende boken er nå på 18 plass på Amazons bestseller-liste:
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
Boken er skrevet med tanke på den politiske situasjonen i USA, men den stemmer meget godt inn også på europeiske, for ikke å snakke om norske, forhold.
"Of course, everything [D'Souza] says here is accurate... But it's not going to sit well with people on the American left who, of course, are portraying themselves as the exact opposite of all of this." —RUSH LIMBAUGH
Go check out the book The Big Lie. American progressives loved the Nazis until they heard about the Holocaust.
Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy shows Reagan in a different light than the mythological conservative the right-wing ideologues are and have been pushing. It's an excoriation of the myth of Ronald Reagan but not necessarily of Reagan himself. You might even sometimes find the book complimentary of Reagan.
Here you go:
http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Is-Mental-Disorder-Solutions/dp/1595550437
i checked and they are full of conservative people praising the book & there are no top reviews from liberals criticizing it.
[The Cost of Our Silence: Consequences of Christians Taking the Path of Least Resistance ] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1622452712) 4.8 stars
ERADICATE: Blotting Out God in America: Understanding, Combatting, and Overcoming the Anti-Christian Agenda 4.3 stars
Big Agenda: President Trump’s Plan to Save America 4.7 stars
The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left 4.6 stars
Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism 4.7 stars
Understanding Trump - Newt Gingrich 4.8 stars
Dangerous - Milo Yiannopoulos 4.9 stars
most liberals have more work to do than write negative reviews for tripe that can be found on any facebook comment section. see, that is the difference ; most conservatives detest and loathe liberals while most liberals want to convince conservative to let progress happen.
but sitting and stewing in your echo chamber has made you believe that liberals are evil baddies
This NYT piece explores that question pretty thoroughly, and includes a lot of outside links
This section is a decent summary:
>In other words, upscale voters were just as important to the Obama coalition as downscale voters. One consequence of the increased importance of the affluent to Democrats, according to Bonica and the three co-authors on the inequality paper, is that the Democratic Party has in many respects become the party of deregulated markets.
>“The Democratic Party pushed through the financial regulation of the 1930s, while the Democratic party of the 1990s undid much of this regulation in its embrace of unregulated financial capitalism,” the four authors write.
> They cite the crucial role of congressional Democrats in enacting the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which eliminated past restrictions on interstate banking; the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act separating commercial banking from other financial services; and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which restricted government oversight of most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps — all of which played a role in the financial crisis of 2007-2009.
>The critique of the increased Democratic dependency on the rich by Bonica and his co-authors is modest in comparison to that of Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, political scientists at Princeton and Northwestern. In a 2014 essay, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” they analyze congressional voting patterns and conclude that
> >"The majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose."
> >“These findings may be disappointing to those who look to the Democratic Party as the ally of the disadvantaged,” Gilens wrote in a 2012 essay published by the Boston Review:
It's going to be more slanted, but the Thomas Frank book Listen, Liberal charts the road the Democrats traveled from focusing on common welfare to catering to the needs of the upper-middle professional class.
So does this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486
​
But we can sit here all day and sling links back and forth. What do YOU think?