US Politics: Meet the New Right, same as the Old Right

[TrackerNeil]

However, I will say that the kind of Ken Star "go wherever there's wrongdoing" investigation is never a good thing for a politician. There's always dirt to be found. Very few regular citizens could withstand a private investigator with significant resources digging for any sort of malfeasance, and politicans have a lot more shady dealings than the average joe.

So now I am wondering if every time we have a Democratic president if a special prosecutor will be appointed to investigate him/her. Maybe it will become a rite of passage that Americans just come to expect. ::sigh::

[Phaing]

BR,

The first thing anyone on the right of the political spectrum should admit, myself included, is that Marx's criticisms of capitalism are valid and should not be merely written off because Marx made the criticism.

Today more than ever, with the emerging dominance of Crony-Capitalism.

However, Marx's solution to materialism was to install a system of Governance that obsessed with materialism, and a proven failure in dozens of nations all over the planet.

When when when is somebody going to come up with something new?

[BloodRider]

Today more than ever, with the emerging dominance of Crony-Capitalism.

However, Marx's solution to materialism was to install a system of Governance that obsessed with materialism, and a proven failure in dozens of nations all over the planet.

When when when is somebody going to come up with something new?

Thanks for making my point.

[sologdin]

the hell?

marx's critique of capitalism does not go to cronyism, antitrust, or other defects of the system. the critique runs to capitalism as functioning on paper perfectly as intended by its advocates. it is not a critique of 'materialism,' but rather of immaterialism. marx himself did not articulate as a solution a "system of governance," and is not easily associated with the alleged 'proven failure' that destroyed fascism.

where do y'all find these anti-marxists who are all chutzpah and no teeth?

who now will take the knife to my chest?

[Larry of the Lawn]

Well done - you've got solo quoting the breaker of horses, men, and cappies.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

It's always easier to write about a dystopia than a utopia. Just like it's always easier for the opposition or minority party to take potshots at malfeasances and errors by ruling or majority party than it is to actually govern themselves.

That Marx managed to find flaws in capitalism doesn't make his worldview valid or his proposals sound. In fact, history has decisively shown that Marxist derived economic and political systems fail and often disastrously. Capitalism has has flaws and it's excesses need to be tempered, but it is still, similar to democracy, the worst economic system with the exception of all the others.

[Wise Fool]

It's always easier to write about a dystopia than a utopia. Just like it's always easier for the opposition or minority party to take potshots at malfeasances and errors by ruling or majority party than it is to actually govern themselves.

That Marx managed to find flaws in capitalism doesn't make his worldview valid or his proposals sound. In fact, history has decisively shown that Marxist derived economic and political systems fail and often disastrously. Capitalism has has flaws and it's excesses need to be tempered, but it is still, similar to democracy, the worst economic system with the exception of all the others.

History has shown that every economic and political system fails and often disastrously.

What proposals of Marx do you think are unsound and why? What worldview of Marx do you find invalid, and why?

[aceluby]

It's always easier to write about a dystopia than a utopia. Just like it's always easier for the opposition or minority party to take potshots at malfeasances and errors by ruling or majority party than it is to actually govern themselves.

That Marx managed to find flaws in capitalism doesn't make his worldview valid or his proposals sound. In fact, history has decisively shown that Marxist derived economic and political systems fail and often disastrously. Capitalism has has flaws and it's excesses need to be tempered, but it is still, similar to democracy, the worst economic system with the exception of all the others.

Yeah, otherwise it fails disastrously. And how do we temper it? With a healthy dose of socialist economic policy. The question isn't which one is better, the question is what balance of the two is best. Those arguing that either is perfect is frankly stupid or ignorant of history.

[BloodRider]

Yeah, otherwise it fails disastrously. And how do we temper it? With a healthy dose of socialist economic policy. The question isn't which one is better, the question is what balance of the two is best. Those arguing that either is perfect is frankly stupid or ignorant of history.

The issue is that the American right, (the Republicans and its two lackey "parties": The Berts, and the Teahadists) thinks that any gov't intrusion is Socialist and Marxist. They have zero tolerance for the state.* So, no, there is no discussion of balance when one side calls you a Marxist because you think the FDA does on the whole help our society (for example).

*Except for maybe enforcing contracts and stopping "the use of force" within a very myopic view of force.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

You could say the United States has a 'Marxist derived' economic system, to the extent that Marx-influenced socialists achieved real policy victories and even formed a major part of the Democratic Party coalition through the organized labor movement in the early-to-mid-20th century. In other countries other Marx-influenced socialists of different stripes achieved broader victories, but that doesn't mean it's the case that they have the best claim to Marx, who was hugely and widely influential, but who never detailed a specific system.

[awesome possum]

However, I will say that the kind of Ken Star "go wherever there's wrongdoing" investigation is never a good thing for a politician. There's always dirt to be found. Very few regular citizens could withstand a private investigator with significant resources digging for any sort of malfeasance, and politicans have a lot more shady dealings than the average joe.

I think the difference here is, Republicans (and arguably Hillary's primary campaign before them) have been looking for something, anything to hammer Obama with for 6 years and they haven't found anything worse than Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. Let them try to impeach Obama over Benghazi, we could use that Democratic supermajority again before 2020.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BR,

Who are "the Berts"?

[BloodRider]

LiBERTarians.

[awesome possum]

Tomasky points out why the Benghazi saga is a farce in just one paragraph

Benghazi has been probed many times. Two Senate reports and eight House reports, along with a State Department review led by Thomas Pickering and Mike Mullen. Now, I don’t know their party registrations, but Mullen is a retired Navy admiral who was named the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by President George W. Bush, and Pickering has served seven ambassadorial posts, his first two under President Reagan (and his first in a hotspot, El Salvador, where a real loyalist is typically placed). If you really think Benghazi is all a big liberal conspiracy, I suggest that you ask yourself seriously whether two such men would willingly play a part in it. It’s preposterous. Yet they said in their report, and told Darrell Issa’s committee, that the military did all it could but just couldn’t get there in time.

Ten reports (surely taken by Republicans) and one State Department review led by two guys who also likely lean Republican. And nothing. Because there is nothing.

[Shryke]

Trey Gowdy shaming the palace guard media

I could listen to him read the phone book.

Just for a second, I thought you'd come to your senses. Then I realised by "the palace guard media" you meant the opposite, because the sycophantic bitches of DC are the only ones who care about Benghazi even a bit:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117647/white-house-reporters-burned-benghazi-keep-coming-back

Last week, after Republicans pivoted to Benghazi in unison, The Huffington Post's Sam Stein observed an interesting phenomenon.

When it came time to put White House press secretary Jay Carney in the hot seat, reporters for smaller outlets—whose correspondents are consigned to the back rows of the briefing room—were interested in real, unfolding dramas: Ukraine, the Affordable Care Act, the Snowden disclosures, and so on.

But when Carney moved to the big-name journalists at the front of the room, the only thing anyone seemed to care about was Benghazi.

The rest is fun too:

And that raises an interesting question, because in covering the story as a political scandal, just as Republicans want them to, the only scalps the media has really collected are their ownAnd that raises an interesting question, because in covering the story as a political scandal, just as Republicans want them to, the only scalps the media has really collected are their own. CBS suspended Lara Logan after "60 Minutes" aired, and later had to retract, her Benghazi feature; Sharyl Attkisson resigned from the same network, charging her former colleagues with liberal bias—reportedly because they didn't adequately promote her Benghazi coverage; and ABC's Jonathan Karl had toapologize last year after he passed along an inaccurate summation of then-unreleased White House Benghazi emails. The administration had granted members of Congress access to the emails in classified briefings, and the source who provided Karl the summary (presumably a Republican) had either taken poor notes, or intentionally misconstrued their contents, to make it appear as if the White House had thumbed the scales in the inter-agency dispute over how to address the attacks publicly.

In feeding the story, Republicans have burned reporters in very public and damaging ways. It's unclear why you'd have to manipulate evidence and promote pathological liars if the real story of Benghazi were anything like the Benghazi of the right's fever dreams. Yet none of this has deterred those same reporters from returning to it anew, as if it were a brewing scandal, every time Republicans run out of other things to talk about. It's like Benghazi Stockholm syndrome.

[Ramsay Gimp]

It's always easier to write about a dystopia than a utopia. Just like it's always easier for the opposition or minority party to take potshots at malfeasances and errors by ruling or majority party than it is to actually govern themselves.

That Marx managed to find flaws in capitalism doesn't make his worldview valid or his proposals sound. In fact, history has decisively shown that Marxist derived economic and political systems fail and often disastrously. Capitalism has has flaws and it's excesses need to be tempered, but it is still, similar to democracy, the worst economic system with the exception of all the others.

Well said.

History has shown that every economic and political system fails and often disastrously.

What proposals of Marx do you think are unsound and why? What worldview of Marx do you find invalid, and why?

And you guys blanche when I say there's a strong Marxist worldview in these threads...

Capitalism and liberalism won, guys. Get over it. The Glorious Proletarian Revolution isn't coming

[Ramsay Gimp]

Yeah, otherwise it fails disastrously. And how do we temper it? With a healthy dose of socialist economic policy. The question isn't which one is better, the question is what balance of the two is best. Those arguing that either is perfect is frankly stupid or ignorant of history.

You may well think that, but it doesn't make Marx right. He wasn't advocating for an injection of socialism into a market-dominated model, he was arguing for a complete seizure of the means of production by the workers

[Ramsay Gimp]

and is not easily associated with the alleged 'proven failure' that destroyed fascism.

:ack:

The Communists who "destroyed Fascism" were no better than the Fascist themselves

[ThinkerX]

Oh well...as to the 'impeach Obama' bit or something similar...

...The extreme right wing groups have been engaged in a huge mass mailing campaign lately claiming that their case against Obama is now before the Supreme Court, and that victory would result in Obama being forced from office.

I've no idea what the case is (what I posted is what's on the envelopes) and no links to offer, plus for a very long while now I've regarded these people as scam artists, BUT...

...that is what the big push is about at the moment...judging from the volume of mail.

[BloodRider]

You may well think that, but it doesn't make Marx right. He wasn't advocating for an injection of socialism into a market-dominated model, he was arguing for a complete seizure of the means of production by the workers

And again the Republican water carriers make my point. TaDa!