Its a pointless argument, because the terms left and right are used to stay within the boundaries of liberal Utopian ideology.

Liberalism and all its derivatives are utopian and they are all lefty ideologies/modern religions if you like. Problem is that people don't really use terms left and right in any meaningful way or as it was originally used.

During French Revolution there was an assembly, national assembly to discuss and argue about the future of the country. It just so happens that those who wanted republic, who promoted liberalism and socialism were sitting in the left side and those that were for return to monarchy and or constitutional reformed monarchy were sitting on the right, opposite to the other side. This was not a matter of moral positions, it was arbitrary sitting arrangement.

In American in particular the terms left and right were used to describe democrats and republicans, which are both opposed monarchy and are utopian lefties according to the original meaning. The problem I have is how the terms are used in modern times and in America in particular is that they lock any debate that is still left, into liberal Utopian paragdime. In America, right does not mean non liberal utopia it just means a different version of it. It is so effective this contament that if you tell Americans that republicanism is a lefty utopian ideology, they will think you are mad, and yet historically and factually that would be correct thing to say. See, how pointless left and right terms have become in modern politics. They always lead to same place and any debate about their true origin or meaning is supressed, left out or out right denied. Sounds very utopian too me.

As for democrats or republicans, politically they are uniparty. Their common theme is power. Even if we pretend voting actually makes a differnce in America and it does not, but for the sake of argument if we pretend it does, it would still make no differnce since voting republic or democrat gives you the same policies in key aspects that are having same basic outcomes. Bigger and bigger federal and state goverment, smaller and smaller differnce between the policies. Both forign and domestic. That is the nature of goverment. It wants to get bigger, it needs to get bigger to survive. Hence you get bigger and bigger goverment. The so called founding fathers idea of limited goverment is a utopian fantasy that clearlly does not work in any country, in any place it has been tried. As French Revolution terminology clearly points out. Republicans are lefty utopians as the rest of them.

In the case of Bush administration in particula, as it is mentioned in your original post, well Bush and I assume you mean Bush Jr. is a groomed monkey boy , placed into position of presidancey by other people. Including his father who is a long standing utopian neocon.

" As the twentieth century draws to a close, the United States has emerged as the world's only superpower: no other nation possesses comparable military and economic power or has interests that bestride the globe. Yet the critical question facing America remains unanswered: What should be the nation's global strategy for maintaining its exceptional position in the world? Zbigniew Brzezinski tackles this question head-on in this incisive and pathbreaking book.The Grand Chessboard presents Brzezinski's bold and provocative geostrategic vision for American preeminence in the twenty-first century. Central to his analysis is the exercise of power on the Eurasian landmass, which is home to the greatest part of the globe's population, natural resources, and economic activity. Stretching from Portugal to the Bering Strait, from Lapland to Malaysia, Eurasia is the ”grand chessboard” on which America's supremacy will be ratified and challenged in the years to come. The task facing the United States, he argues, is to manage the conflicts and relationships in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East so that no rival superpower arises to threaten our interests or our well-being.

The heart of The Grand Chessboard is Brzezinski's analysis of the four critical regions of Eurasia and of the stakes for America in each arena—Europe, Russia, Central Asia, and East Asia. The crucial fault lines may seem familiar, but the implosion of the Soviet Union has created new rivalries and new relationships, and Brzezinski maps out the strategic ramifications of the new geopolitical realities. He explains, for example: Why France and Germany will play pivotal geostrategic roles, whereas Britain and Japan will not. Why NATO expansion offers Russia the chance to undo the mistakes of the past, and why Russia cannot afford to toss this opportunity aside. Why the fate of Ukraine and Azerbaijan are so important to America. Why viewing China as a menace is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why America is not only the first truly global superpower but also the last—and what the implications are for America's legacy. Brzezinski's surprising and original conclusions often turn conventional wisdom on its head as he lays the groundwork for a new and compelling vision of America's vital interests. Once, again, Zbigniew Brzezinski provides our nation with a philosophical and practical guide for maintaining and managing our hard-won global power. "

"The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives Paperback" 1998 by Zbigniew Brzezinski

Jimmy Carter’s National Security Council adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski famously bragged about having induced a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 by supporting Islamic fundamentalists with the goal of “giving the Soviets their Vietnam.”

Who put Jimmy in the office? The Trilateral commission co founded by Brezeinsky and Rocefeller. That is the technocrats we now know under terms like WEF.

Bush duo and almost everyone except until Trump is part of the establisgment of these utopians and Trump was eager to please the neocons way too much.

George Bush Sr. New World Order Live Speech Sept 11 1991

Bush Thinks About New Ways of Harming Our People

Biden domestic polices they have him sign are pure techocracy.inc from the 1930's and columbia universtaty ideas, including those of Brzezinski, And his forign policy, especially towards Russia is pure grand chessboard utopian false narrative as per Brzezinski and his utopian lunitics.

In the heat of the Great Depression during the 1930s, prominent scientists and engineers proposed a utopian energy-based economic system called Technocracy that would be run by those same scientists and engineers instead of elected politicians. Although this radical movement lost momentum by 1940, it regained status when it was conceptually adopted by the elitist Trilateral Commission (co-founded by Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller) in 1973 to be become its so-called "New International Economic Order."

In the ensuing 41 years, the modern expression of Technocracy and the New International Economic Order is clearly seen in global programs such as Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Councils of Governments, Smart Growth, Smart Grid, Total Awareness surveillance initiatives and more.

"Does the USA government have stockholders? Absolutely! Global corporations and banks, NGOs and globalist foundations. Furthermore, they expect a return on their investments, namely, privatized “sweetheart” deals that lock out competitors. In many cases, this gives the “private” party a monopoly over the services offered. Citizens are only seen as consumers.

Prior to the 1993 Clinton/Gore initiative, the goal of government was to serve the people. Now the goal is not to serve the people but rather to serve its stockholders. Previously, the goal was to facilitate a price-based, free-market economic system. Now the goal is to facilitate an energy-based green economy predicated on Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 policies.

The bottom line is that our Federal government, as represented by the Executive Branch and all of its agencies, no longer represents the citizens of the nation, and that is why Congress and the Constitution have been effectively neutered. Lastly, we see the clear trail of Trilateral Commission members from start to finish.

eBook: Technocracy rising - the Trojan horse of global transformation, 2014 by Patrick M. Wood

...........

Originally co-authored by Patrick Wood and Antony C. Sutton in 1979-80, this is the amazingly documented story of the organization and members of the Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, with the specific purpose of creating a “New International Economic Order”. With a small but powerful international membership, hand-picked by an executive committee, Commissioners asserted undue influence over America, Japan and Europe.

This is the original documented story of the organization and members of the Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, with the specific purpose of creating a “New International Economic Order”. With a small but powerful international membership, hand-picked by an executive committee, Commissioners asserted undue influence over America, Japan and Europe.
In 1976, Trilateral members James Earl Carter and Walter Mondale were elected to head the Executive Branch in the U.S., thus starting a 40 year hegemony over the greatest economic nation on earth. American influence and position was used to reform international trade, promote globalization and interdependence among nations. European Trilateral members were then instrumental in using the United Nations to create a doctrine of Sustainable Development and Green Economy: See Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (Wood, 2015) for details.

Originally written in 1979-1980, Trilaterals Over Washington quickly became a best-seller and over the course of about two years, sold over 75,000 copies internationally. The books were very well received for excellent scholarship and original research, and even became a frequently-used textbook in political science classes at many colleges in U.S. universities.

The co-author, Antony C. Sutton, passed in 2002 after authoring 24 books during a distinguished academic career that included UCLA and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

• Trilaterals Over Washington Volumes I & II

Technocracy and Democracy in Latin America, 2014
by Eduardo Dargent
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú

Praised by some as islands of efficiency in a sea of unprofessional, politicized, and corrupt states, and criticized by others for removing wide-ranging areas of policy making from the democratic arena, technocrats have become prominent and controversial actors in Latin American politics. Nonelected state officials with advanced educations from top universities, technocrats achieved considerable autonomy from political and economic actors and exerted great influence over their countries’ fates. This finding poses an intriguing paradox. These experts lack an independent base of authority, such as that afforded via popular election. They also lack the tenure enjoyed by professional bureaucrats. What, then, explains the power of technocrats in democratic Latin America? And why do they enjoy and maintain greater influence in some policy areas than in others? Through an in-depth analysis of economic and health policy in Colombia from 1958 to 2013 and in Peru from 1980 to 2013, Technocracy and Democracy in Latin America answers these and other questions about technocrats in Latin
America.

Eduardo Dargent is an associate professor of political science at Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. His main teaching and research interests are comparative public policy and democratization, and the state in the developing world. He has published in Comparative Politics, the Journal of Latin American Studies, and the Journal of Politics in Latin America.

.........

Do I need to talk about EU and its technocratic, unelected beurocarts chasing windmills across Europe? No. I think its quite clear.

..........

As for America founding. One can look at Jefferson and his speeches about "all men are created equal", "Liberal empire" etc. Less radical, but no less Utopian and lefty.

The liberal ideology is a contemporary religion. I disagree with the viewpoint of the progressive modern liberals that pursuing religious freedom is a worthwhile objective, because it is a false premise. Liberals impose their own religion upon other religions because they believe it to be the only true faith and the most moral of them all. So much so, they believe that simply self-identifying as a liberal is enough to be morally superior. They outsource the responsibility of personal morality by unloading it onto the liberal ideology itself. This is expanded by the Liberal dogma of the “doctrine of universal human rights.” Those who disagree with it are rarely tolerated; hence, those that are more dogmatic among the liberals, consider even challenging the human rights doctrine to be blasphemous.

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
― William F. Buckley

‘Modern liberalism suffers unresolved contradictions. It exalts individualism and freedom and, on its radical wing, condemns social orders as oppressive. On the other hand, it expects government to provide materially for all, a feat manageable only by an expansion of authority and a swollen bureaucracy. In other words, liberalism defines government as a tyrant father but demands it behaves as nurturant mother.
Liberalism, like second-wave feminism, seems to have become a new religion for those who profess contempt for religion. It has been reduced to an elitist set of rhetorical formulas, which posit the working class as passive, mindless victims in desperate need of salvation by the state. Individual rights and free expression, which used to be liberal values, are being gradually subsumed to the worship of government power.

The problems on the American left were already manifest by the late 1960s, as college-educated liberals began to lose contact with the working class for whom they claimed to speak… For the past 25 years, liberalism has gradually sunk into a soft, soggy, white upper-middle-class style that I often find preposterous and repellent.’

*Camille Paglia

And this inevitably gave rise to the really intolerant, extreme leftist ideologies we see now. It was not a matter of whether it would happen, but when it would happen, and it is because liberalism, by its very nature, refused to engage in discussion of a shared moral code. Its integrity is jeopardized without it. Achilles heel.

And for many today, self-identifying as liberals has become a way to outsource moral responsibility to the liberal ideology itself. That is why many liberal intellectuals are so smug. They consider liberalism to be the most moral ideology, but refuse to define their shared moral code. And that is why I consider liberalism a religion. It considers itself to have the best moral ideology. To change one’s opinion and see liberalism as a flawed ideology would mean one must now find something else, and that is so scary for many liberals that they would rather defend the indefensible than say liberalism has a problem. And that is the characteristic of religions.

Classical liberalism holds that everyone should develop their own morals and that morals should not be derived from a single organization or person. It gives itself the liberty to do exactly that with "rights."

“I would rather try to organize politics and political discourse in a way that encouraged engagement on moral and religious questions. …If we attempt to banish moral and religious discourse from politics and debates about law and rights, the danger is we’ll have a kind a vacant public square or a naked public square.

And the yearning for larger meanings in politics will find undesirable expression. Fundamentalists will rush in where liberals fear to tread. They will try to clothe the naked public square with the narrowest and most intolerant moralism.”

*Michael Joseph Sandel is an American political philosopher.

“Liberalism has failed, not because it fell short, but because it was true to itself. It has failed because it has succeeded. As liberalism has become more fully itself, as its inner logic has become more evident and its self contradictions manifest, it has generated pathologies that are at once deformations of its claims, yet realizations of liberal ideology.

A political philosophy that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human dignity, and of course expand liberty in practice generates titanic inequality, enforces uniformity and homogeneity, fosters material and spiritual degradation, and undermines freedom.”

― Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (2018)

Reminds me of what someone said. Liberalism delivered what it promised, but it was the opposite of what most expected.

Liberalism vs. Reality - Feb 29, 2020 Excerpt from James Burnham, Suicide of the West (1964; New York: Encounter Books, 2014), pp. 319-40; 345-9.

Feb 29, 2020 Excerpt from James Burnham, Suicide of the West (1964; New York: Encounter Books, 2014), pp. 319-40; 345-9.

The Guilt of the Liberal - Feb 29, 2020 Excerpt from James Burnham, Suicide of the West (1964; New York: Encounter Books, 2014), pp. 221-8.

Chances are if anyone professes to be smarter than you are he's lying to himself. And that applies even from the viewpoint of the intellectually challenged who recognize their own shortcomings.