NationStates Jolt Archive

An article entitled "The End of the Left’s History. The world has moved on."

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200412020818.asp

Read, discuss, (flame?)


Bloathing

I'm not even going to bother reading it. It sounds like someone's wishful thinking - umbrella terms for large numbers of ideologies and philosophies don't "die" in any meaningful sense.

Amusing response, given what the content of the article contains.

Flame, I say. Blithering idiot. Yet another person who's confusing "Democrat" with "left-wing" for a start. Outright left-wing parties have always struggled to gain and then hold onto power, and today is no different. The centre and centre-right have dominated for nigh-on thirty years in Britain.

That doesn't mean, nor ever has done, that left-wing views are irrelevant. Where the hell do you think the idea for the welfare-state came from?

I see nothing amusing in my response. No history can end. Thus the title of the article is bullshit, and the contents too, most likely. I am simply not interested in the contents.

I see nothing amusing in my response. No history can end. Thus the title of the article is bullshit, and the contents too, most likely. I am simply not interested in the contents.
Headlines are always sensational compared to what the article contains. I agree that the article in no way justifies the headline, but it's still worth skimming over.

I see nothing amusing in my response. No history can end. Thus the title of the article is bullshit, and the contents too, most likely. I am simply not interested in the contents.

You're right.... the contents are exactly that. It claims that the Left's reaction to bush's election is a flailing cry of a dying ideology, when it is probably more accurate to say that articles such as that are the straw-clutching of a Right wing beaten on policy and grasping for its power.

It is rather a load of BS.
He seems to forget that in most of Europe, the Socialist are either the biggest or the second biggest party.
The left-wing in the European Parliament is larger than the right-wing, for instance. This can hardly be considered a 'death rattle'.

Yes, when a recent appointee to an EU justice position made some ill-advised comments about homosexuals and the place of women in society, the greens, communists and socialists were able to in effect, threaten to vote out the entire EU government with a comfortable majority unless he got removed.

He got removed.

Not a good example of decline.

I've said it before - there hasn't been a legitimate Left in the US since the 1920s.

As for the rest of the world, there are plenty of Left people around.

I suggest that for those who think Communism isn't around anymore, that they take a trip to Cuba.

It's not dominating the world, but then again, it's not dead either.

Exactly. The kind of opinion on display in that headline can only be that of a partisan writer who has never left his state. Plenty of low-horizon thinkers like that the world over.

No, real credibility, authority and influence is commanded by those who see the bigger picture.

Exactly. The kind of opinion on display in that headline can only be that of a partisan writer who has never left his state. Plenty of low-horizon thinkers like that the world over.

No, real credibility, authority and influence is commanded by those who see the bigger picture.

Does the bigger picture include reading the content of articles before commenting on them? :)

(I am not trying to be mean to Tactical Grace. I just continue to find a certain amusement in this thread. I'm sorry if I offended. I say this in the spirit of playfullness. Please forgive if taken offensively)

I've read the article and I advise not to loose time reading it. It's worthless.
It can be fun for flaming though.

Does the bigger picture include reading the content of articles before commenting on them? :)

(I am not trying to be mean to Tactical Grace. I just continue to find a certain amusement in this thread. I'm sorry if I offended. I say this in the spirit of playfullness. Please forgive if taken offensively)
Once again, it is worth a read, as it isn't quite what its headline suggests. But yes, ultimately, it's mostly BS.

I'm NOT reading it... =.=;; it's .asp! ;) j/k...

Yup, some how he manages to link Marxism and the Democrats together....yeah caus a centre right party and the Marx are/were in the same boat.

I've read the article and I advise not to loose time reading it. It's worthless.
It can be fun for flaming though.
It's not completely worthless. There are some useful facts hidden in there somewhere, as long as you recognise that he has come to a conclusion first, and then tried to find evidence to justify it.

Does seem to ignore that 55 million ppl voted for Kerry and it was the 5th closest US election in history (maybe the 6th, I can't remember exactly). So how can that be seen as a death-knell for the Left?

Also, how can he claim that Clinton only won by adopting the Right's policies, where under him, the US had a surplus and now under GWB, it's running an enormous deficit. It seems to me that there must have been a policy change sometime.

Does seem to ignore that 55 million ppl voted for Kerry and it was the 5th closest US election in history (maybe the 6th, I can't remember exactly). So how can that be seen as a death-knell for the Left?
Kerry's not left-wing.

The Democratic Party is not Left.

It's so similar to the Republican Party, it's not funny.

A Communist party would be Left. So would Socialists. Democrats are neither.

Here in the US, items of Left origins (such as Marx's writings) are dressed up and used as coffee table books to show the purported depth of the owner's intellectual background.

Other than that, the Left in the US is moribund and has been for decades.

Quick quiz to prove it: without Googling, who was Gus Hall?

Quick quiz to prove it: without Googling, who was Gus Hall?Post WWII leader of the American Communist Party. I am still waiting to see more than one persona respond to the article instead of what they think the article is about without reading it.

Post WWII leader of the American Communist Party. I am still waiting to see more than one persona respond to the article instead of what they think the article is about without reading it.
Well there's Kel, Psylos and me for a start.

The Democratic Party is not Left.

It's so similar to the Republican Party, it's not funny.

A Communist party would be Left. So would Socialists. Democrats are neither.

Here in the US, items of Left origins (such as Marx's writings) are dressed up and used as coffee table books to show the purported depth of the owner's intellectual background.

Other than that, the Left in the US is moribund and has been for decades.

Quick quiz to prove it: without Googling, who was Gus Hall?

And how was that not a response to the article that I read?

National Review is Partisan biased stuff. I've read them in library just to see how low they would go. They go pretty bad in lies.

I'll read it but I'll expect their usual lies.

*after reading*

Wait it just lied:
For the most part, the Left only wins elections nowadays when their candidates run on their opponents’ platform (Clinton and Blair) or when panic overwhelms the political process (Zapatero and Schroeder). Under normal circumstances, leftists running as leftists rarely win, proving that their ideology — the ideology that dominated political and intellectual debate for most of the last century — is spent. When their ideas were in vogue, leftist advocates took electoral defeat in stride, as they were confident that their vision was far more popular — because far more accurate — than their opponents’ view of the world. History and logic were on their side. But no more. Incoherent rage and unbridled personal attacks on the winners are sure signs of a failed vision.
Kerry lostr while acting very right wing...he didn't run as a leftie. Bush framed him as such but he didn't run as one. So the start of the article is crap. But let me see if they go cleaner after this.

The success of America was thus a devastating blow to the Left. It wasn’t supposed to happen. And American success was particularly galling because it came at the expense of Europe itself, and of the embodiment of the Left’s most utopian dream: the Soviet Union. Even those Leftists who had been outspokenly critical of Stalin’s "excesses" could not forgive America for bringing down the Soviet Empire, and becoming the world’s hyperpower. As Marx and Hegel would have understood, the first signs of hysterical anti-Americanism on the Left accompanied the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The resurgence of American economic power and the defeat of the Soviets exposed the failure of the Left to keep pace with the transformation of the world. The New York intellectual who proclaimed her astonishment at Reagan’s election by saying, "I don’t know a single person who voted for him," well described the dialectical process by which an entire set of ideas was passing into history.
Soviet Union is far from any democrats dream. Why couldn't they forgive America for bringing it "down"? Reagon raised taxes, nuff said. He was a democrat in his second term economically.

Unable to either understand or transform the world, the Left predictably lost its bearings. It was entirely predictable that they would seek to explain their repeated defeats by claiming fraud, or dissing their own candidates, or blaming the stupidity of the electorate. Their cries of pain and rage echo those of past elites who looked forward and saw the abyss. There is no more dramatic proof of the death of the Left than the passage of its central vision — global democratic revolution — into the hands of those who call themselves conservatives.
History has certainly not ended, but it has added a new layer to its rich compost heap.

Well fraud is common with Elections. Some people dissed Kerry but he did the best he could. And the fact that he did this good with his supposedly "weak" record proves it. Electorial college is stupid lol.
So the Left is dead because the conservatives have become the Left?
Doesn't that mean the Left won!

I knew it would try to lie.

Well there's Kel, Psylos and me for a start.
Psychlos doesn't repond to the article, although I agree to his summary of it. Kellarly somehow sees mention of the democratic party (presumably in the US) in the article that isn't there, I have to assume that this is attributaable to not reading the article. I think the author is a little confusing in his definition of the western left, but he doesn't speak at all of the US democratic party by name and doesn't at all seem to be confusing them with the Western Left (in his terminaology, the Western Left of the author being the Marxist movements, as the author makes clear at the begining of the piece).

I am still waiting to see more than one persona respond to the article instead of what they think the article is about without reading it.


So, despite the fact that Ledeen mentions (1) Hegel, (2) the Fall of the Soviet Union, and (3) the end of history, no mention is made of Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man, despite the article just being a small scale re-telling of the narrative that Fukuyama presents.

Are we to assume then that Fukuyama's narrative was so flawed that it wasn't worthy of mention? If so, then we are left with exactly the same impression by this piece.

I see nothing amusing in my response. No history can end. Thus the title of the article is bullshit, and the contents too, most likely. I am simply not interested in the contents.


You didn't miss much. The article kind of preeches to the choir.

Oh and for ever how asked. Gus Hall was the leader of the American Comunist Party. I think he died in 2000 or 2001.

Does the bigger picture include reading the content of articles before commenting on them? :)
Of course. The rudiments of intelligence are the rapid sorting of signal from noise.

Yes, a rightist deathcry would be an appropriate description. (Although I'm not stupid enough to believe that the Right Wing could be dying either.)

You really can find something useful from there? Could you point it out maybe?

So, despite the fact that Ledeen mentions (1) Hegel, (2) the Fall of the Soviet Union, and (3) the end of history, no mention is made of Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man, despite the article just being a small scale re-telling of the narrative that Fukuyama presents.

Are we to assume then that Fukuyama's narrative was so flawed that it wasn't worthy of mention? If so, then we are left with exactly the same impression by this piece.I suspect that although the author may be familiar with Fukuyama the title was based upon Hegel's End of History and the analysis is the author's own. While it resembles Fukuyama's analysis it is not the same.

No history can end.

Ah, so the history* of the seventeenth century hasn't ended yet?




* as distinct from historiography.

In my answer (my previous post) I mention the Democratic Party (and Gus Hall) to show that the Left has been long gone here. And I bring up Cuba because it still exists.

Saying something no longer exists doesn't make it so.

Technically speaking, the Communist Party is still in charge in China. So I'm sure it comes as a surprise to over 1 billion people that the Left can't get a candidate elected without pandering to the Right.

Kerry's not left-wing.
Yeah, the most liberal senator we've ever had isn't left-wing. Seriously though, I think people like the writer of this article have blinders on. Yes, Bush had millions more vote than any president in US history, but so did Kerry and also, percentage wise, we haven't had an election this close with the popular vote since the one Bush lost. So, if a 2% lead is a mandate, I say we kick out the usurper and give Gore his 4 years back.

Ah, so the history* of the seventeenth century hasn't ended yet?




* as distinct from historiography.Not the appropriate formulation. Under msrxist doctrine history is defined as the record of the struggle of man against man, when this becomes unecessary and the strugle ends, then history is over. It does not mean things stop happening, but that mankind ceases to strugle against itself. Appologies for the implicit sexism to those who might be offended.

Well in my honest opinion, the Democratic Party will die out, or go under a drastic change, much like the whigs, before they became the Republicans.

Will the Left die? Fat chance, IMO Europe alone carries the Left for enough of thw world, so obviously it won't.

I think this'll happen in the next 20-30 years, possibly.

Not the appropriate formulation. Under msrxist doctrine history is defined as the record of the struggle of man against man, when this becomes unecessary and the strugle ends, then history is over. It does not mean things stop happening, but that mankind ceases to strugle against itself. Appologies for the implicit sexism to those who might be offended.

Ah, yes, but implicit in the Marxist dialectic of history is the end of history itself with the withering away of the state and the little defined situation that follows that.

Edit: In other words, the end of class struggle (post-withering away of the state) is the end of hsitory within dialectical materialism.

The article states, "Leftist Europeans — and the bulk of the American intellectual elite — believed that only state control by a radical party could set their societies on the road to equality."
... and this is different from what "rightists" think how???

The author also doesn't do his research. The Soviet Union was not communist, it was closer to some bastard child of dicatorship and socialism that closely resembled the former. Also, the man has never read Marx. Communism, as marx writes it is a utopia where everyone is equal. Soviet Union was run by a despot, one with rightist leanings no less. So in actuallity, the fall of the Soviet Union was the fall of an authoritative, rightist society. There has never been a true Communist country, because in order for communism to work in any form, the entire world would have to be united "under one banner" if you will. China is capitalist. Soviet Union was run by a despot, as is Cuba. Don't really know whats up with Vietnam or North Korea.

Btw, what was that song... The one who's first words are "Imagine there's no heaven" what was the title and when was it written.

Also, wouldn't "changing society" benefit the liberals as opposed to the conservatives?

Wait a minute, he's painting the US as being founded on rightist policies. That's right, freedom of religion is what the rightists are all about. He's using current statistics to make historical points, who put the hole in his skull?

Lee, there were plenty of people who loved the Soviet Union in the 1930s here in the US and in the UK - they would have disagreed with you.

They thought Stalin was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and Soviet-style Communism to be the answer to everything.

Of course, they didn't know about the deliberate starving of whole peoples, or the huge public works projects built by slaves at gunpoint.

The article states, "Leftist Europeans — and the bulk of the American intellectual elite — believed that only state control by a radical party could set their societies on the road to equality."
... and this is different from what "rightists" think how???
The statement is true, in that only state control by a radical party could set a society on the road to equality.

Where left and right disagree is whether this is desirable.

The fact that the author cannot formulate this clear distinction, suggests that (s)he is rather crap.

Indeed :D

Of course, they didn't know about the deliberate starving of whole peoples, or the huge public works projects built by slaves at gunpoint.

And of course, in the USA, they would never chain people together and set them to labour on public works projects while overwatched by people with guns...

Lee, there were plenty of people who loved the Soviet Union in the 1930s here in the US and in the UK - they would have disagreed with you.

They thought Stalin was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and Soviet-style Communism to be the answer to everything.

Of course, they didn't know about the deliberate starving of whole peoples, or the huge public works projects built by slaves at gunpoint.
I base my facts on actuality, not perception. A few million misinformed people doesn't make the misinformation true. For instance, Saddam Hussein wasn't responsible for September 11th, despite the people (most likely due to the masterful influence of Karl Rove (he must have sold SOMETHING to the devil to be that good at what he does)) who think he was.

Btw, what was that song... The one who's first words are "Imagine there's no heaven" what was the title and when was it written.

Also, wouldn't "changing society" benefit the liberals as opposed to the conservatives?Imagine written by John Lennon, you can find it performed by The Beetles or by Lennon.

I base my facts on actuality, not perception. A few million misinformed people doesn't make the misinformation true. For instance, Saddam Hussein wasn't responsible for September 11th, despite the people (most likely due to the masterful influence of Karl Rove (he must have sold SOMETHING to the devil to be that good at what he does)) who think he was.

LOLOL
(sry. for this pointless post)

Ah, yes, but implicit in the Marxist dialectic of history is the end of history itself with the withering away of the state and the little defined situation that follows that.

Edit: In other words, the end of class struggle (post-withering away of the state) is the end of hsitory within dialectical materialism.
More Marx's than Marxist. Marxism as it exists today is less concerned with the withering of the state than the change in the nature of it, more working towards the pre-Marx Hegelian ideal state (the Hegelian end of history in whihc history was the record of man's attempts to achieve the ideal government).

LOLOL
(sry. for this pointless post)
No, I'm serious, I hate the man, I think he might be the anti-christ. However, JESUS didn't manage to change as many peoples viewpoints as this man. He is the only guy I've ever seen who can make being a vietnam veteran (McCain, not Kerry) look like a bad thing while at the same time making draft-dodging via the national guard look like the American Way.

Btw, boys and girls, never ever EVER trust an article with THIS picture or anything like it on their page.


http://ad2.nationalreview.com/ads/adview.php?what=zone:2&n=ad4768dc

Holy hell, the one above its WORSE!!!!

Oh yeah, btw, I'm suprised they didn't jump Lennon for being communist... Seriously, that song (beautiful song btw, love it and what it says) is basically laying out a scenario that happens to be the only scenario in which Communism would actually work as written by Marx.

More Marx's than Marxist. Marxism as it exists today is less concerned with the withering of the state than the change in the nature of it, more working towards the pre-Marx Hegelian ideal state (the Hegelian end of history in whihc history was the record of man's attempts to achieve the ideal government).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Hegel claim that the ideal Hegelian state was Prussia in the early C19th?

Its not the end of the left...........just because they lost twice and are very discontented by doesn't mean they wont get back to their senses and remain a political force.(may take some time, but you cant say they dont still have backers)

Just one comment on the article. It says:
"Marx was famously unable to comprehend the importance of religion, which he dismissively characterized as the "opiate of the masses," and the Left had long fought against organized religion. But America had remained a religious society, which both baffled and enraged the leftists. On the eve of the 2004 elections, some 40 percent of the electorate consisted of born-again Christians,"
...Now how does the increasing influence of religion mean Marx was unable to comprehend the importance of religion. It's the opiate of the masses, meaning it encourages the status quo, reassuring the working class and telling the common men to just keep their noses to the grindstone and allow their oppression to continue because when they die they will be rewarded if the don't make a fuss... and don't forget to give Caesar what is Caesar's (or something like that from the New Testament).
Now, if we apply this to the impact this writer suggests religion had on the outcome of the 2004 presidential election, we have people keeping the Right-Wing leader in power because of their religion. He keeps oppressing the working class, because religion encourages the status quo. In short, Bush getting elected by the religious types would reaffirm what Marx said before it would disprove it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Hegel claim that the ideal Hegelian state was Prussia in the early C19th?I don't believe so, but I could be wrong. I know he backed FWIII's attempted constitution @1810, but that never was passed, and it didn't meet the atandard of the ideal state, just was a step closer to it. but Hegel was a bit of a court favorite and more a courtier than a philosopher in his last decades, so he may very well have said something like that.

The article states: For the most part, the Left only wins elections nowadays when their candidates run on their opponents’ platform (Clinton and Blair)

To our British friends: how true or false do you feel this statement is about Blair's opponents?

Its not the end of the left...........just because they lost twice and are very discontented by doesn't mean they wont get back to their senses and remain a political force.(may take some time, but you cant say they dont still have backers)
"Left" and "Democrat" are not synonyms, and this article deals with the Left as a worldwide ideology, not a party specific to the United States. HOwever, the writer does seem to focus mostof his attention on the US... maybe because it's so much further to the right than most other Western democracies and supports his points best. It's convenient for him to ignore the fact that in, oh, Canada for example, there hasn't been a Conservative Prime Minister in 11 years, and the major party that's farthest to the left, the NDP, is gaining support lately (The Conservatives gained seats last election, but they did not actually gain any popular support. The gains they made were due to the Unite the Right movement, which made 2 parties into one and ended the splitting of votes between the two. Most of the popular support lost by the Liberal party actually went to the NDP and Bloc Quebecois, both left-leaning parties).

that's rather silly. if he considers the democrats left wing, then the left is strong up here in canada, what with the liberals being more left wing than the democrats... and they're our centrist party.

someone has a very narrow view of things. and the whole thing in spain happened because the president tried to cover up the fact that it was people opposed to spain's involvement in iraq who bombed the train. they lied to the people. you can't lie to the people you hope to elect you and hope to win.

that's rather silly. if he considers the democrats left wing, then the left is strong up here in canada, what with the liberals being more left wing than the democrats... and they're our centrist party.

someone has a very narrow view of things. and the whole thing in spain happened because the president tried to cover up the fact that it was people opposed to spain's involvement in iraq who bombed the train. they lied to the people. you can't lie to the people you hope to elect you and hope to win.
Worked for Bush

It's also an America-centric viewpoint. Left and Right, terms coined from the seating arragments in Second Republic French parliament, are irrelevant terms regardless. What Ledeen fails to comprehend is, just as this bifocal understanding of politics is outmoded (something Europe came to appreciate long ago), so is the two party system in which America operates. Both parties are under pressure to dissolve into micro-factions, and, if you take a close look at the constituenties of both, you can arrive at the following understandings of the parties:

REPUBLICANS are composed of:
Christian Right/"Neo-Conservatives"(militant, nationalistic, and paternalistic)
"Libertarians" (anarcho-capitalists)
Liberals (in the economic sense, meaning free marketeers...Americans call these guys "fiscal conservatives")
Goldwater Republicans (states rights, minimum government interference, etc...the old school republicans we all know and love...pragmatic and unexciting)
(and more rich, pasty white dudes!)

DEMOCRATS are composed of:
Workers' parties/Unions
Rose-in-fist Democratic Socialists
More Liberals (here known as "moderates" in the states)
Greens (with a smattering of anarcho-syndicalists)
New Deal Democrats (party loyalists, called "Blue Bloods" in the states...people who think FD Roosevelt was the best damned president we ever had. In the South we call them Yellow Dog Democrats...if the ballot was between a Republican and a yellow dog, they'd vote for the yellow dog)
Civil Rights groups
(and more underemployed liberal arts students then you can shake a stick at!)

My point is that both parties "left" and "right" are fracturing...the Republicans are just having an easier time keeping things together because of the sheer momentum they've accumulated. But you get 20 Republicans together in a room and, though they'll all have the same economic viewpoints, their views on the role of government in peoples' lives will differ. Some will say government should not interfere at all, some will say religion needs to be brought back into the public sphere, some say that government needs to be shrunk as a whole, some say that it needs to expand in places and shed the rest. The Republican party, the "right" as we know it in America, is in just as much danger as the "Left"...I know plenty of Republicans who jumped ship and voted for an Independent, Nader, or the Libertarians. I think once the Republicans wake up from their latest self-glorifying orgy of smug, they'll look down and see the cracks in their foundation.

My assessment: neither party will survive the next 50 years.

And of course, in the USA, they would never chain people together and set them to labour on public works projects while overwatched by people with guns...

the disturbing bit is that there are all sorts of people over here who call for more of it, and view it as a positive thing. of course, many of these same people often seem to think that photographs of torture are just pictures of people harmlessly blowing off a bit of steam, so maybe it isn't exactly surprising.

Thank you Danarkadia for your contribution to the thread. I found it insightful. It is interesting how each of the two major political parties in the US have taken on the color of the other to some larger or lesser degree over the years.

Do you dare to venture a guess on what the characteristics of the US political parties of 2054 will look like?

Also "thank you"s go out to the others who have taken the time to read the article and lend comment, regardless of what "side" you take. I have found the the thread quite interesting.

I'm not surprised that this was in the National Review, AKA that most right-wing mainstream magazine in America.

It's a pretty good indication of that American's arrogance that he thinks GW Bush's re-election is somehow a significant event in world history of political ideology.

He also stereotypes the left in America as "the American intellectual elite", despite the fact that back in the 1920s and 1930s, when America had a genuine left, most support came from the urban working class.

The success of America was thus a devastating blow to the Left. It wasn’t supposed to happen.
Most of America's success came after left-wing reforms such as minimum wage and closure of sweatshops were instituted by Teddy Roosevelt.


The weakest aspect of this article is that it uses stereotypes. The left it supposed to be elite, compared tot he populist right. This is one of the central tenets of the ongoing right-wing assault on the left. The left has always supported the goals of working class people. That is why working class people have traditionally voted left.

I think the other Republican "success" story is the military.
When they got rid of the draft, the military became all volunteer.
Working class people joined, but it seems to attract Republicans.
Now, it's largely a Republican organization.
Why? Because a lot of Democrats are anti-war, and would never join in the first place.

If I were the Democrats, I would bring back the draft, just to try and even things out.

Never mind all of the BS rhetoric where he pretty much trieds to buttonhole the whole "Left" as being equated to Marx... instead I'll just us his closing statement as my illustration on why I think he is totally off the mark.

There is no more dramatic proof of the death of the Left than the passage of its central vision — global democratic revolution — into the hands of those who call themselves conservatives.


By equating the Left with the idea of democratization and pointing out that this is very much a factor of the current conservative movement, this does not at all speak to the death of the left, but rather to it's ultimate victory if the right has adopted it's basic vision.

So the political pendulum in the states has shifted to the far right, the writer of that article is a retard. I am sure in time american politics will shift towards the center again....

I still don't see a valid Left in the US. Calling Democrats Left is rather odd to me.

The best I can come up with is calling Democrats "not Republicans" which they probably find pleasing.

Post WWII leader of the American Communist Party. I am still waiting to see more than one persona respond to the article instead of what they think the article is about without reading it.

I read it, it wasn't worth my time.

It's also an America-centric viewpoint. Left and Right, terms coined from the seating arragments in Second Republic French parliament, are irrelevant terms regardless. What Ledeen fails to comprehend is, just as this bifocal understanding of politics is outmoded (something Europe came to appreciate long ago), so is the two party system in which America operates. Both parties are under pressure to dissolve into micro-factions, and, if you take a close look at the constituenties of both, you can arrive at the following understandings of the parties:

REPUBLICANS are composed of:
Christian Right/"Neo-Conservatives"(militant, nationalistic, and paternalistic)
"Libertarians" (anarcho-capitalists)
Liberals (in the economic sense, meaning free marketeers...Americans call these guys "fiscal conservatives")
Goldwater Republicans (states rights, minimum government interference, etc...the old school republicans we all know and love...pragmatic and unexciting)
(and more rich, pasty white dudes!)

DEMOCRATS are composed of:
Workers' parties/Unions
Rose-in-fist Democratic Socialists
More Liberals (here known as "moderates" in the states)
Greens (with a smattering of anarcho-syndicalists)
New Deal Democrats (party loyalists, called "Blue Bloods" in the states...people who think FD Roosevelt was the best damned president we ever had. In the South we call them Yellow Dog Democrats...if the ballot was between a Republican and a yellow dog, they'd vote for the yellow dog)
Civil Rights groups
(and more underemployed liberal arts students then you can shake a stick at!)

My point is that both parties "left" and "right" are fracturing...the Republicans are just having an easier time keeping things together because of the sheer momentum they've accumulated. But you get 20 Republicans together in a room and, though they'll all have the same economic viewpoints, their views on the role of government in peoples' lives will differ. Some will say government should not interfere at all, some will say religion needs to be brought back into the public sphere, some say that government needs to be shrunk as a whole, some say that it needs to expand in places and shed the rest. The Republican party, the "right" as we know it in America, is in just as much danger as the "Left"...I know plenty of Republicans who jumped ship and voted for an Independent, Nader, or the Libertarians. I think once the Republicans wake up from their latest self-glorifying orgy of smug, they'll look down and see the cracks in their foundation.

My assessment: neither party will survive the next 50 years.
Excellent post. I would add that the Religious Right is really a faction unto its own. They share some big-government views with the neo-cons, but really, the Republicans use them to get elected, then ignore them (there is no way Roe v. Wade will get overturned, and Bush would never support something like that.)

As well, libertarians may be shifting to the Democrats, I've been trying to gather information on this, I had an unscientific poll a while back which showed the libertarians on this site preferred Kerry over Bush by 75%. Quite simply, I don't think the libertarians can coexist with the growing power of the neo-con/Religious Right alliance. They do better with the Barry Goldwater/Pat Buchanan paleo-conservatives.

In any case, the *parties* themselves will probably exist for many years to come (simply through the massive amounts of money involved), though they may become twisted beyond all recognition (as they already have been, compared to the 1800s).


And now, for the article that started this thread...I've been thinking for awhile that economic leftism may be on the decline (for the moment) but social liberalism/libertarianism is definately on the rise, and nothing will change the latter.

If this continues, we may just see a powerful Libertarian Party in America. Badnarik nearly beat Nader this year, after all the press Nader got, that's pretty impressive.

And just looking around online, it seems there's nearly as many libertarians as conservatives. I know this isn't a good representation of the public, but I have the definate feeling that as government gets bigger and bigger under Democrats and Republicans, the Libertarians will get noticed.

So for those who think Bush's narrow (yes, I will use that word) re-election means the end of welfare state leftism...you may be right. But abortion will never be criminalized, gay marriage will happen, and marijuana will be legalized. I expect the Republican Party to get on board once those positions become popular.

Somebody needs to explain to the guy who wrote this article that practicaly every civilized nation outside of the USA has a left wing or left leaning government. They should then explain to him that well over 40% of Americans did vote Democrat. Do American intellectuals really think along such generalized and shallow lines? If so, then that's too bad. Maybe Americans need to start sending their children to foreign colleges, so that they can learn critical thinking...

I've said it before - there hasn't been a legitimate Left in the US since the 1920s

Just to point out, social liberals made a huge headway in the 60's, along with idealogical liberals (Those annoying idealists who refuse to accept that anything without a physical impediment isn't impossible -- like me :D).

The problem that I have is that social liberals in the US are, by comparison to almost any other country in the world, not Left.

Have we ever had a Communist Senator, Representative, Governor, or President? Socialist? I may be wrong on the Socialist, depending on how far we want to go back, and how far down the food chain.

But a Left party with national legitimacy? With Michael Moore proclaimaing a few years ago that Clinton was the greatest Republican President since Ronald Reagan?

Just to point out, social liberals made a huge headway in the 60's, along with idealogical liberals (Those annoying idealists who refuse to accept that anything without a physical impediment isn't impossible -- like me :D).
And with any luck, the social conservatives in the US (read, fundamentalist religious wackos) will overreach and piss off enough of the members of the party they've taken over that they'll be left high and dry again. The left in the US is responsible for so many good things--they've expanded the "in group" so to speak by pushing for the rights of women and minorities to equal protection under the law; they fought for and won employee protections like teh right to a safe work environment and the right to organize. They fought for and won environmental protections, and they fought for democracy in both world wars. The left did all this while the right was in bed with corporations and wanted to isolate us from world affairs. The fact that we in the US are in the position to be the world's biggest asshole under our current President is due far more to the work over the last hundred years of the political left than to the work of the right. Sorry we've slipped in the last few years.

Well, I'm almost anarchist in my social views, so the social liberals I see tend to either fall under 'centrist' or 'fellow'. There're quite a few people like me in the country, we just don't speak up too often, haven't since the early 70's.

The problem that I have is that social liberals in the US are, by comparison to almost any other country in the world, not Left.

Have we ever had a Communist Senator, Representative, Governor, or President? Socialist? I may be wrong on the Socialist, depending on how far we want to go back, and how far down the food chain.

bernie sanders is the only rep in recent history who counts as a socialist - though i don't recall if he is officially a member of any party right now.

bernie sanders is the only rep in recent history who counts as a socialist - though i don't recall if he is officially a member of any party right now.
He's listed as an independent in the House roll call.

He's listed as an independent in the House roll call.
He's a self-described socialist. Just think of him as a 60's welfare liberal.


Well, I'm almost anarchist in my social views, so the social liberals I see tend to either fall under 'centrist' or 'fellow'. There're quite a few people like me in the country, we just don't speak up too often, haven't since the early 70's.
Quite true (coming from a fellow social liberal/libertarian/anarchist).

Socialism may have lost, but social liberation is an unstoppable force.

Taking these terms into consideration:

that left-wing is defined as those who support varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare,

and that in politics left-wing, political left, leftism, or simply the left, are terms which refer (with no particular precision) to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of socialism, social democracy, or liberalism (especially in the American sense of the word), or with opposition to right-wing politics ...

I would say that we do not need the left-wingers as it only results in raised taxes regardless of whether you actual like the social programs or not. Consider the European countries that are socialist. Do you have any idea what their income tax rates are? It's about 60%. This means that, despite the fact that you already dislike paying taxes, left-wing social programs will only raise them.

Volunteerism can and does take care of a multitude of social issues, and personal initiative and effectiveness can get more done in less time than the silly social programs.

Remember, you don't like paying taxes ... so left-wing means your taxes get jacked up, baby. Don't defend it if you feel inclined to.

An article entitled "The End of the Left’s History. The world has moved on."

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200412020818.asp


In a word, stupid. This article equates the left (literally, anything left of Ronald Reagan) with Marx's communism. Taking that ridiculous pretext as its base it associates Democrats winning with losing "Oh, but Clinton was one of us!", losing with extinction "Kerry lost, therefore your vision and all its adherants have died" and ignores the ENTIRE WORLD.

It suggests blithely that no left leaning government exists in this world anymore, and those that are lefties are in fact right wingers in disguise. I have heard of re-writing history so you win this time, but re-writing the current make up of the entire world to fit your idealogy is a bit extreme.

Finally ending with a gusto that borders on madness it declares labor disputes in America as being over, that the right has long since won. Why has it won, we ask? Because there has not been a full-fledged worker rebellion/revolution to take power.

...riiiight. I think this article could have been rewriten to say simply that "Marx's philosophy has died" and then it would only wrong in Nepal, Columbia, and a host of nations with communist uprisings currently ongoing. As it stands, it is correct only if you accept the premise that if you are not Ronald Reagan you are a commie, and if you are left of Ronald Regan you have lost every single election in the last 20 years. ESPECIALLY if you won; in that case you lost double.

Just the fact that this article is coming from NRO should be taken as a sign not to take is seriously. An amusing idea that a 1% trend toward conservatism since the attacks on September 11th 2001 would lead to the end of Leftist ideologies, but not really based in any sort of fact or reason.

It is interesting to note that a number of proponents of the Left in this thread have NationStates that have 100% income tax. Is that by design, or by flaw in the game?

Would anyone willing want to have 100% income tax?

It is interesting to note that a number of proponents of the Left in this thread have NationStates that have 100% income tax. Is that by design, or by flaw in the game?

Would anyone willing want to have 100% income tax?
No, I used to be a Psychotic Dictatorship, and the side effects haven't worn off yet.

It is interesting to note that a number of proponents of the Left in this thread have NationStates that have 100% income tax. Is that by design, or by flaw in the game?

Would anyone willing want to have 100% income tax?I did it on purpose. I even had to increase my military budget for that, even though I did not want to.

I did it on purpose. I even had to increase my military budget for that, even though I did not want to.

More curiosity... do you pay any taxes in real life? (Or are you a minor?)

If you do pay taxes in real life, do you wish you could be paying more of them?

(I don't know anyone who would knowingly want to pay more taxes, regardless of political standing... unless... maybe in a game? ;))

(I don't know anyone who would knowingly want to pay more taxes, regardless of political standing... unless... maybe in a game? ;))
Well of course this is a game and many of our nations are not necessarily representative of our own views.

But as for taxes, obviously we all want to pay less taxes.

But then, we want to have a military right?

Ok, raise taxes a bit.

Do we want roads?

Raise taxes a little more.

Do we want a post office?

Raise taxes some more.

Do we want public education?

Raise taxes some more...and such and such.

That doesn't mean, nor ever has done, that left-wing views are irrelevant. Where the hell do you think the idea for the welfare-state came from?

Are you saying you are for welfare states? If so, what do you see as merits?

An article entitled "The End of the Left’s History. The world has moved on."

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200412020818.asp

Read, discuss, (flame?)


Bloathing
The guy is a wanker, and thats about the poorest article I've ever almost read.

Ooh, now look how I prove his point that leftists fail to respond civilly to complete trolls.

Ooh, now look how I prove his point that leftists fail to respond civilly to complete trolls.

Well said. :)

More curiosity... do you pay any taxes in real life? (Or are you a minor?)

If you do pay taxes in real life, do you wish you could be paying more of them?

(I don't know anyone who would knowingly want to pay more taxes, regardless of political standing... unless... maybe in a game? ;))I do, I pay more than half of my salary of €4500/month. I wish I could pay more of them and feel more secure, didn't have to support my mother who is invalid (she gets €300/month from the state, that's ridiculous) and if I didn't have to support 2 students (one is a foreigner and gets absolutely nothing from the state). And I know my boss will cut costs soon and that I may find myself in the deep shit. I feel so tired of this.

Are you saying you are for welfare states? If so, what do you see as merits?
Isn't that obvious?
The welfare state is the only way to support a population of several million people. Charity doesn't work, or it has to be industrialized charity.

Headlines are always sensational compared to what the article contains. I agree that the article in no way justifies the headline, but it's still worth skimming over.

Maybe to someone who isn't used to such arguments. I get enough of that drivel listening to AM radio on my way into work every morning. Ridiculous partisan chest-thumping...

Fun Fact - the word "left" appears 29 times in 8 paragraphs.

Maybe to someone who isn't used to such arguments. I get enough of that drivel listening to AM radio on my way into work every morning. Utter crap.
There are some facts hidden away in there somewhere, even if he misuses them. I find it fascinating to try and work out these people's logic. Of course, if it becomes too easy to dismantle their arguments, it's no fun.

Are you saying you are for welfare states? If so, what do you see as merits?
Yes. Do you not think the Government has a responsibility to ensure a minimum standard of education, healthcare, etc, for its people?

Fun Fact - the word "left" appears 29 times in 8 paragraphs.
See! I told you it was worth skimming!

There are some facts hidden away in there somewhere, even if he misuses them. I find it fascinating to try and work out these people's logic. Of course, if it becomes too easy to dismantle their arguments, it's no fun.

That's the way such people get any credibility at all...a couple spoonfuls of factuality plus a whole lot of preconceived notions, spun heavily to taste.

Isn't that obvious?
The welfare state is the only way to support a population of several million people. Charity doesn't work, or it has to be industrialized charity.

It wasn't that obvious to me, I have major concerns about welfare, that's why I asked.

I personally don't see how running a welfare state helps a country's people in the long run. It too easily encourages the notion that people don't have to be responsible for their own condition, and that there is a such thing as a free lunch. Both are not true from my viewpoint on how things operate.

One is responsible for one's own condition, and there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Tough truths to face, but nonetheless truths. Why sugarcoat them and cover them up with welfare? True, it would require a major reform of government (and thinking about oneself and ones relation to others.) Goverments would have to focus on enlightening people to these facts and be taken to task to ensure all the stops and barriers be removed for people to gain education and to establish gainful employment for themselves, their families, groups, and whatnot. It's a big task. I'm not saying it's an easier path. But its one that leads towards enabling more people to rise to their potentials, as opposed to rewarding them for not taking the initiative (and penalizing those who do and have to pay for the other guys' lack of contribution.)

I, by the way, am not slamming folks who are on welfare, I am taking goverments that promote welfare as a "solution" to task.

Thanks for listening. I have enjoyed hearing all sides of this thread, and continue to respect the opinions of those who agree, or disagree with my own opinions.

Best,

Bloathing

I don't get it. Welfare is not a reward, is it?
Welfare is for the people who can't sustain themselves, not for those who don't want to do it.
And I don't know any alternative to welfare. Charity is obviously too little to sustain that many people. And you can't count on the family when there is no family.
I respect your opinion as well, but I don't understand it at all.

I don't get it. Welfare is not a reward, is it?
Welfare is for the people who can't sustain themselves, not for those who don't want to do it.
And I don't know any alternative to welfare. Charity is obviously too little to sustain that many people. And you can't count on the family when there is no family.
I respect your opinion as well, but I don't understand it at all.

Alas, by some it is viewed as a reward, or if not, acted on as one.

Disclaimer: Realize I'm speaking in some generalities here and there are countless specific examples for and against the points and observations I make here.

I look at welfare as a solution to an unhandled problem. Like any solution, it has some merit, else it wouldn't have been taken up. Where I'm going with this is looking at the problems welfare attempts to address: unemployment, short-term and long-term disabilities (have I missed others?). I think welfare has its palce for short-term circumstances (yes, I agree charity is not a fully workable subsitute for welfare.)

I look at unemployment as a short-term problem. If someone remains unemployed for a long period, it's an indication of one or more things: 1) they may not be interested in work (an outpoint that is fostered by those who consider welfare a reward), 2) they are unable to work due to economic circumstances, 3) they are unable to work because of lacking skills. All three of these points, I feel, should be addressed within the domain of government working with the individual. Of course, that implies the individual wants to work. If "rewarded" too easily for not working (long term welfare) the problem remains pretty much stuck at point 1. That's where government needs to step in a put well defined limitations on welfare and work towards helping businesses grow to create more jobs,m and education to improve to create more qualified workers.

Yep, there's plenty of work for government to do, and for us to do besides just taking money from one set of pockets and distributing it to another. It's a pretty big reform, and interests me to see how it could be approached on a gradient (big changes require gradients) on a large practical scale (as opposed to my philopshizing about it here in a game forum. :))