Good article by Jordan Peterson and Gregg Hurwitz
I am a moderate Democrat and have been so for about 40 years. I talk to Democrats and I go to meetings with Democrats. Democrats are not socialist, not communist, and mostly regular people who would like to see a less partisan political world. Basically we need less media which loves controversy and arguments.
If your view of the Democrats come from the Media, particularly Fox News or any of the propaganda outlets, then you probably do not understand Democrats.
To explain my moderation let me say that I think less government and less regulation are admirable goals, and I strongly support both free enterprise and fiscal responsibility. That said, I would argue that the three most significant problems in our country are 1) the inequality/inequity situation and the distribution of the benefits of capitalism; 2) climate change; and 3; Healthcare. In all these cases I think the Democrats are on target and the Right is off base.
It is a matter of priorities and belief that our goals should be about the most good for the most people.
So I am a moderate Democrat.
V.
The assessment of the conservative media that the Democrat Party is Socialist is supported by the party's policies, legislation, rhetoric and their own proclamations. It is also supported by the voters of the party such as yourself, as you proclaimed to support the pillars of socialism is your own comments, "I would argue that the three most significant problems in our country are 1) the inequality/inequity and distribution of the benefits of capitalism; 2) climate change; and 3; Healthcare. In all of these cases I think the Democrats are on target and the Right is off base." Then you said, "It is a matter of priorities and belief that our goals should be about the most good for the most people."
You're either a Socialist and refuse to admit it, or a Socialist but don't know it. Those are the two categories of proud Democrats. Capitalist Democrats vote Republican in the general and bugger the primaries. Democrats elected Donald Trump.
@Facci
I would offer there is R-Socialism (that the Right talks about) which includes command economies and nationalization of major industries, and there is D-Socialism (or maybe Social Democracy) that includes using government to help take care of some of the problems created by unfettered capitalism.
R-Socialism is like a scare tactic. D-Socialism is looking for solutions to problems. Not the same thing.
My starting point is that we (Homo sapiens) are a social species. Our strength (or survival as species) came from our sociability which lead to language, group hunting, sheltering together, tribes and clans and rules for society. Moderation of groups comes from rules of behavior and culture. This led to our civilization (rule of law) and the collaboration that led the domination by our species.
Acting in a social or group manner works better than everyone acting as individual. Of course, it presents the problem of what are the best rules (what are our priorities?). But it (working together) leads to government (by the people) as the ultimate authority (in civil matters) and trying to solve problems through collective efforts.
So what is your definition of socialism?
Van
@Vatalmage Capitalism is socially more viable. Capitalism best facilitates distribution of goods, services, and good. Also, Capitalism is much more efficient at maintenance of infrastructure. Homo sapiens will always be a social animal. Totalitarianism and the failure of socialism are by products of antisocial cultures and death cults.
The classical liberal democrats started moving away from the left when the socialists started moving in. Some classical liberals stubbornly cling to their position on the political spectrum. Currently,the socialists are making a big move to finalize the infiltration of the Democrat party in the US. The move toward socialism started in earnest under Woodrow Wilson. The US constitution probably saved it and has been a thorn in the ability of government to centralize power. Socialism during the early thirties was popular, the US government was going to save the nation, bring it out of the great depression and provide for its citizens. This is when the "classical liberal" intellectuals started abandoning the democrat party in earnest. The general population was happy with the promise of "a chicken in every pot" and the great socialist experiment was in full swing...that is...until Hitler's brand of socialism started opposing the preferred socialist ideology among academia, the financial elite and the politically connected...communism. And communism was an international movement. Hitler's economic success was interesting and some of the destructive revolutionary tactics of the communists as it marched into eastern Europe and the clashes starting in China were concerning. Could the socialist state be established without the inherent revolutionary destruction Marx described as necessary? Could the petit bourgeoisie be convinced to turn over its ownership of the means of production? The national socialist movement was being studied very closely, especially from the corporate sector. Fascism was akin to corporatism.
Essentially, the Democrats over the decades lose a few followers over time that wish to "conserve" the basic distrust and wariness Americans were supposed to hold toward government until today when the conflict has reached its zenith. Those that won't move to the right or the far left will, in my view, wind up splitting the party between the liberals and the socialists.
That's how I see it.
Excellent response. Thx for taking the time.
You have to subscribe? Doh!
While I'm not arguing all Democrats are socialist, the ones who aren't are mostly too afraid to speak in their own party--politician and voter alike. The price of weaponized intersectionality/pc. I see more and more actual people on the left--people I interact with daily--toeing the party line, and the power in the party is clearly the socialists.
Huh! Weird, I read it without issue. Maybe you exceeded free hits for this month, or something.
Of course not. They are all wrong however.
Just that? Flat out "wrong"? Don't you find this overly generalized and simplistic for someone who follows an anti-tribalist movement like the IDW?
@Jay1973 No I haven't. Have you considered that you're assuming a great deal? I don't recall saying I'm on a side. Please do not assume you know or even understand my stance or views on anything other those I've plainly stated. And what I have plainly stated in this line of thought is that I've seen or heard nothing coming from the modern American democratic party with which I agree or support. I hope that clarifies this matter for you. And welcome to the IDW
@Boardwine
I agree with 100%, the is no one in the Democratic Party that I would support either. They basically don’t care about the people, it is all about the illegals and getting their votes. Look at the state that california is in, do you think the Democrats care if the homeless have no place to go or a place to live. It is all about the illegals being able to vote them in.