Cecil disagree’s on the minor points, but as I read it, he substantively agrees.
Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t. SentientMeat and Cecil Adams are talking about two different things. SentientMeat’s point was about ownership of wealth, Cecil’s about income. SentientMeat’s figure about ownership of wealth may be right or it may be wrong, but the column you quoted says nothing whatsoever on the topic.
Fair enough, I’ll retract the “since the gilded age” and replace it with “for many decades” (even though that column examines the top 0.1% rather than the top 1% as in my post).
However, it is still clear that the US is far more unequal than it was even 30 years ago, and far more unequal than other industrialised democracies today.
Socially, yes I think it’s true that the US is more liberal. Consider shows such as Will and Grace and Queer Eye. Nobody bats an eye at them now, but 10 years ago, they would have been quite controversial. Twenty years ago, they would have been unthinkable. In terms of acceptance (or at least tolerance) of homosexuals and of such things as interracial marriage, clearly the US is more liberal than before. Or if you define liberalism as belief that the government can be a positive partner for economic change, then I think the jury’s out. The Reaganesque creed that they’re is indeed a free lunch and we’re going to eat it persists in the Bush deficits of today. As a liberal, I believe in good government and a responsible government. What we have now is neither.
This question is difficult to wrap your brain around. I see two basic forms of liberalism in the United States…economic and social.
Is the United States moving left economically? I think not. I don’t think the portion of the population that generates more income than is provided to it by the government is willing to shoulder the level of taxes necessary to maintain a more Socialist society than we already have. Many people seem to want a Socialist level of services funded by Capitalist level of taxes. That, plus minor items like a defense budget, equals budget deficits. Unless there is a mass acceptance of higher taxes, we are about as far left economically as we are going to get.
Socially? This question is more fluid. In general, our society is becoming more permissive with accepted dress and entertainment content. Can you imagine how a violent movie, the lyrics of many CD’s or the clothing of a typical 16 year old girl would have been accepted in the 1950s?
What some refer to as “The Culture War” will continue with gains and losses by both sides.
Grammar police: that there is indeed… My apologies for the grammar.
It was my mistake for using a word that has become so bogged down in semantics of late. Hell even Kerry is afraid to don the label of a liberal.
But, for the sake of this discourse the definition of liberal and leftist are essentially interchangeable. Both are characterized by a proclivity for progressive reform, as opposed to their conservative counterparts who favor more gradual change and usually seek to safeguard the status quo.
i think short term, as in election 2004, it’s still anybodies guess. it all depends on terrorist activity and the economy.
as for a major geopolitical shift, the only thing that could possibly mean is a shift to pure communism. we and the world are already socialist. so much money is artifically redistrubuted now no one could reasonably claim the rich don’t pay their share.
neither presidential candidate this year, or probably in the next 50 years, will leave ‘the middle’ of the politial spectrum of 1 - 10.
do i think there will be a shift to communism in america? no.
do i think the rest of the world will stay to the left of us? yes.
I claim that the top 1% owning 40% of the wealth is “not paying their share”. The contention that the US is a socialist state one step away from unadulterated Marxism is simply absurd on its face.
owning something isn’t paying something. look at the taxes they pay. top 5% income (not wage) earners pay over 50% of the taxes. you could say the rich own “more than their FAIR share.” that would make more sense.
communism is the only thing that could be a major leftist shift in geopolitics. if we are already socialist, becoming ‘more socialist’ isn’t anything major. i’m just sticking to the question asked by my boy cainxinth.
Where are all these socialist states? In the West, the US is a capitalist democracy with socialist underpinnings. The European states for the most part are the same, albeit with what I would describe as a healthier reliance on socialist policies. The major shift I described was the balance of power transfering from right-wing to left-wing political parties. And I even defined precisely what I meant by right and left wing.
It seems to me there is a groundswell of popular disapproval for the methods and motives of the Right in the US and the world. The hard-line hawks, supply siders, and unilateralists are finding their devout following is starting to question their faith and a once unified support base is threatening to fragment and lose its majority status.
In the US, Bush didn’t enter office with a clear mandate from the American people to begin with, far from it in fact. And whatever political capital he gained as the result of 9-11 has been steadily squandered at home and abroad. With the election looming and little more than three years of hollow promises and possibly outright distortions to buttress his platform the winds of change seem brisker than expected only just months ago.
High time for the Left to unfurl it’s banner I’d say.
Socialism is: The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
If we’re not total capitalist and we’re not communist, but we’re somewhere in between, we are… socialist.
just becuase moveon.org tells you we don’t support our president doesn’t mean it’s true. i go to the meetings and it’s harder to find a seat than ever before. if you’re counting on bush lossing becuase his base doesn’t show up on election day you are wrong.
you think a ‘major geopolitical shift’ is a proclivity for progressive reform or the left winning a couple elections? that’s like me saying meatloaf is a completely different meal than a hamburger. your ‘progressives’ could win 10 elections in a row and that wouldn’t be a major policy shift, just like my ‘compassionate comservatives’ could win 10 and it wouldn’t.
First, it’s generally bad form to resort to dictionary definitions to make your point in a debate. Second, it’s even worse when you don’t cite your source and pawn Webster’s words off as your own.
Believe it or not, the economic spectrum has more than three stops on it. A nation can be mostly capitalist and somewhat socialist, as we are without fully being one or the other.
No doubt Bush is still the likely front-runner. I never said otherwise. I said recently he has been losing ground to the Dems. Naturally, I’m hoping it’s a trend that is just getting started.
What is liberalism? And how does it differ from radical leftism? Here’s a good discussion, from “A Few Kind Words for Liberalism,” an article published by Philip Green in The Nation, September 28, 1992 (reprinted in Left Hooks, Right Crosses: A Decade of Political Writing, edited by Christopher Hitchens and Christopher Caldwell (New York: Thunder’s Mouth/Nation Press, 2002)):
Later in the essay he discusses the relationship between liberals and left-radicals:
So there really is a difference, a sharp enough difference to give rise, at times, to leftist criticism of liberalism. But I hope in this election year, liberals and leftists will close ranks against the common enemy, Bush.