8 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Anti-Hip's avatar

"Are Rethugs and Demorats actual 'sides' [?]"

I don't mean Republicans and Democrats, nor Right and Left. I mean the positions and practices of contemporary powers-that-be, and those who oppose them. The ability in an ostensible democracy to confront power by legal means has been gradually but steadily removed since 9/11. That is the side that is "losing". The most serious current issue IMO involves censorship.

The earlier commenter Schmiddy Belts said "But only one side has enough evidence to actually convene grand juries and convince panels of regular Americans to vote for indictment." IMO, from my reading of commentary from both sides, much of this is empowered by corruption rather than evidence.

"... when one "side" wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote ..."

Anyone is permitted to contest the results of an election, in speech and in legal processes. Hillary and allies spoke against the 2016 results and launched official investigations. Trump and allies spoke against the 2020 results, and then launched investigations and attempted unprecedented legal procedures (to be implemented Jan 6) to prevent the widely-assumed results from being implemented. Their legality continues to be tested, as we know.

Trump did not call on rogue elements of the military and police to take over the Capitol. He did not encourage protesters to commit violence, although a small number of protesters decided to take matters into their own hands. The idea that Trump and allies *actually* intended to illegally take over the country by force *and get away with it* (for more than a few hours) is, IMO, an absurd interpretation of their intent. But currently half or more of the country now believes it, IMO due to propaganda of unprecedented sophistication and power.

"Anyway I thought the USSA was a republic and not a democracy (at the national level)"

It's both. A "democracy" is any gov system whose aim is to involve the majority in decision-making, whether pure or mixed.

"Democracy has only ever existed in this country for a select group of people"

De facto, yes, in many ways. De jure, implementing a form of democracy was the original intent of the Constitution.

Expand full comment
Alice Ball's avatar

The ability in an ostensible democracy to confront power by legal means has been gradually but steadily removed since 9/11. That is the side that is "losing". The most serious current issue IMO involves censorship.

THIS IS GOLD ANTI-HIP! Totally agree with your entire comment but especially this. If we can’t discuss ideas and proposals and politics out loud and uncensored, we’re in 1984 land. With a government, a giant bureaucracy , and a government-owned corporate media to enforce it.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Sep 1, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Alan Wolfson's avatar

Correction - being used to make an example of any NON-LEFT thinking dissenters/protestors/rioters. How many rioters were prosecuted for burning cop cars on 1/20/2017 during Trump's inauguratoin? For banging on the Supreme Court doors while it was in session??

Expand full comment
Anti-Hip's avatar

"... being used to make an example of any NON-LEFT thinking dissenters/protestors/rioters How many rioters were prosecuted for burning cop cars ..."

The "Leftist" protesters "burning cop cars" you mentioned are not actually Leftists (even though they think of themselves as such), they are simply revolutionary and criminal followers of totalitarians -- the latter who justify all sorts of things (presented in all sorts of intentionally distorted ways to build armies for chaos) as justifiably opposable by "civil disobedience", executed "by any means necessary". But as I mention below, "if you can't *convince* a majority to join you, whatever the (Leftist) goal is ain't worth shit."

Since MSM is now completely controlled by the totalitarians, they ignore coverage, and DAs even avoid prosecution, of lawbreakers. Their extremist (to use their own term) belief is that we do not live in a democracy, but in a racist authoritarian system, so now *all* action in opposition to it is justified. But very few of people who can think -- including Leftists -- and think historically, actually believe that. Ironically, this revolutionary action comes directly in opposition to majority beliefs, which are pooh-poohed. The conceit about who actually supports democratic functioning is jaw-dropping.

Please see my other post here to you.

Expand full comment
Anti-Hip's avatar

You're going to need to distinguish between the faux-"Left" as represented especially by the current authoritarian Democratic Party, and arguably all the authoritarian "Leftist" leaders going all the way back to *Marx*; versus the original Left from its origins (égalité), which is NOT focused on authority, but on fairness.

Fairness ostensibly emerges from well-run democratic decision-making. That is, it is motivated by the *exact opposite* of authoritarianism. But the current Right conflates Marx and Leftism, understandably so because Leftist "leaders" have been doing the same to their NPC members (unfortunately, too many Democrats) -- arguably all the way back to the time of Marx, certainly to Lenin.

But ask a rank-and-file *thinking* Leftist (that is, who is not one of the power-seekers looking to overturn established order, and is not one of people blindly following whatever their leader advocates) what he/she thinks Leftism is all about, and boot-stamping opponents into submission "by any means necessary" is not the way. If you can't *convince* a majority to join you, whatever the (Leftist) goal is ain't worth shit. Also, it goes without saying that Rightists (who seek freedom, NOT totalitarianism) certainly have had their own share of pied-piper authoritarians leading their followers to damnation, need I really enumerate them?

That said, a Rightist can reasonably argue against the *pure* democracy, equalizations of various kinds, etc. advocated by most Leftists, fair enough; that's where the two ideologies actually have opposing ground.

Expand full comment
Starry Gordon's avatar

I advise giving the Left/Right dichotomy a rest since it is clear the terms no longer carry their original meanings, or indeed any meaning at all, beyond style notes.

Expand full comment
Anti-Hip's avatar

I don't agree, at all, to our continual submission to the desire of current authoritarian "leaders" (mostly a so-called "Left") to keep revising, retiring, and coining words without debate. It's handed done from above through this era's equivalent of smoke-filled rooms and thus societally destructive. In the case of the Left/Right distinction, there's simply no need...

The following common threads DO exist in L/R history: The Right persistently emphasizes *freedom* and individual improvement, and in so doing permits individual power variation respecting individuals' desires. The Left persistently emphasizes *fairness* and social-cooperation improvement, and in so doing aims to minimize positive/negative results from individual variation. Most often the latter is specifically in response to the (natural) excesses resulting from freedom, along with their ("unnatural" and accumulated) enhancement through technology (of every kind, going back thousands of years).

In distinct populations such as Democrats and Republicans, the Left and Right have ostensible homes, respectively. But each side often strays and has apparent internal inconsistencies (e.g. the Right's emphasis on order and its enforcement, the Left's emphasis on diversity and its expression), especially as they include large numbers and factions. But they still keep circling back. They are not merely random buckets made for perpetual conflict. Meanwhile, TPTB are dead set on making them appear so, to keep the hoi polloi confused and manageable. But both sides continually exist because they are at root complementary, and each is fundamental to human nature. In addition, nearly everyone wants *some* part of what their opposing side argues; that's how people and majorities are able to switch from one to the other over time, changing political emphases, sometimes conspicuously, to the individual in one era (e.g. Reagan), and to the social (e,g, FDR) in another.

It's enough to hang a hat on, and I propose we start enforcing such meanings in the public discourse. We can help ground political discussions, and help brake our continued descent into gibberish.

Expand full comment