I Think I know Why A2K is Left Leaning

I hadn't actually noticed that A2K was "left-leaning". Also, are you defining "left" in US domestic terms, because from where I sit the US Democratic Party is considerably right-of-centre?

If you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative when you are old, you have no brain.

--Falsely attributed to W. S. Churchill

I recently met a Brit who lives in Spain, in Catalunya, very intelligent, well up-to-date about the local politics, and he kept saying that this or that mayor or member of the Generalitat was a "left-wing socialist". I really wanted to ask if there was any other kind, but I feared the discussion might then continue past the time I was planning to leave the bar.

I bet you were smoking ganja and giggling when you wrote this.

There really is no left represented in American politics (except for perennial fringe groups). I think that's why certain groups, especially young Americans, just don't vote. What's really crazy, is how much passion and even hatred such slight differences engender.

I was raised by my grandparents, who were conservative Democrats (that is a valid distinction). I've often found myself vilified by both sides in the narrow political distinctions of American politics--which doesn't bother me.

Here's a good example. After Mr. Obama was elected, George and Laura Bush made very public friendly gestures to the President-elect and his wife. I started a thread here to point this out and to praise Mr. Bush for these gestures. People lined up to tell me what an idiot i was, and how vile Mr. Bush is and that no friend of humanity would ever praise him. What a bunch of f*cking idiots. American political parties don't have leaders as do political parties in countries with Westminster-style governments. The only time something like that obtains is with a sitting president, and even then, that president cannot command the votes or the loyalty of the members of his party. But a sitting president can exercise moral authority, and Mr. Bush's amity toward the Obamas had the effect of stifling the worst anti-Obama ranting, at least for a time. It was actually a very important gesture on Mr. Bush's part, and truly deserved praise. I guess some of the clowns here who hated Mr. Bush just couldn't handle the idea that he might not be evil incarnate. Of course, as i've noted, there is heavy irony in this in that observers in much of the world really can't see any distinction between the Democrats and the Republicans.

Is there an American Jeremy Corbyn out there?.

The closest you would come among American politicians known nationally would be Bernie Sanders--and even he has some serious conservative baggage. There really is not an American Corbyn, except perhaps in one of the fringe groups.

Same here in Ireland. Our main so called left wing party Labour after 4 years in government with the right wing Fine Gael have lost all credibility. Similar to the Liberals in Britain they will be wiped out in the upcoming election.

How I long for a truly liberal left wing party to vote for.

Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president (John Frémont ran in 1856, and got buried). He brought a lot of Republicans into Congress on his coattails, and when the southern states withdrew their congressional delegations, the Republicans were suddenly the majority. They were considered dangerous radicals, even by some members of their own party. It didn't take long, though, for power to corrupt them, which is to say, that money corrupted them. Controlling the purse strings in Congress had that effect. Theodore Roosevelt, arguably the most popular Republican president in history, was considered a dangerous radical by his own party. Yet he was a man who would condemn Margaret Sanger as a "race-traitor" for advocating the use of birth control. He wanted lots of little white babies who could grow up to take on the white man's burden of ruling the little brown and yellow babies.

I think in part it's a result of our history, specifically in two ways. The first is that so many people came here to get land, which they couldn't get in Europe, or to exercise their weird religious beliefs--and people like that soon come to oppose change, because they want to keep what they've gained. They inevitably become conservative. The other factor is that there never has been a national "aristocracy," despite some regional families who looked like aristocrats. Many "society" families eschewed politics as a vulgar pursuit. Money became the determinate of the aristocracy, rather than birth or social connections--and money is almost always conservative, for the same reason that land-owners are conservative.

It's only natural to want to protect what's yours, wouldn't fault anybody for that. But what's the point of protecting yours if everything else is falling down around you. Funny way of looking at is, you're either a socialist or a sociopath.

Farmers and trades unionists became "dangerous left-wing radicals" in the United States because they were getting ripped off or even shot down in the streets. It took the Republicans a few generations to see that this was counter-productive. So they engaged in "legal" union-busting, and did their best to bankrupt farmers--problem solved.

It's happening here in Ireland, scratch that, Europe at the moment, anything remotely left is vilified by the powers that be with the full weight of the law behind them.
Look at Britain, Corbyn hasn't been in charge a wet day and the Murdoch media are attacking and abusing him every which way.

I'm actually delighted with all this because it shows they're afraid and they've good reason to be.

i miss the old Progressive Conservatives, if Harper is so adamant about traitors being stripped of citizenship then why does Peter McKay still walk among us

I can see dead people . . .

are you speaking figuratively or relatively?

i worked many campaigns for the NDP (Social Democrats)in my high school years, any time i met a member of the Young Conservatives they were the least fun and interesting kids i ever met

A2k is nowhere close to left-leaning.

Several of the people I know who have left the site have left because of the predominance of right-wing posters on the site.

No I was reading an argument recently that the university is liberal not because conservatives are not welcome but rather because conservatives by and large dont consider teaching to be a good use of their time , they would rather be out "doing" things ( an argument that I have not yet bought but that I am considering) , and I was wondering if the same principles apply here. Also I have been noticing that the place is dominated by older people like me who are no longer working, we have the time to mess around here at A2K.

I was presenting a thesis and I was looking to see if anyone could debunk it.

It has over the years moved more to the center, but it is still leftist by USA standards. Remember too that I am well aware that journalism in america tends to run far to the left, that when I say that A2K runs left I am saying that it runs left of the little people, not that it runs left of the propaganda produced by the elite, which is for the most part what "journalism" is now.

And so far as I can tell almost all of the major contributor here are American, though I know that I only look at the threads that I want to look at so this perception could be in error.

The point being that vast numbers of Americans tend to believe the propaganda, that they do not know where America actually is. These are the people who cant figure out why the professional politicians are getting rubbed out by the amaturs. And dont take any comfort that Hillary might still win, she would be looking like Bush in the polls if the D's moneymen had agreed to run a real primary rather that agreeing with the Clintons to run a hillary coronation. Hillary being where she is is all about the Clintons' successful use of power to prevent the American people from being allowed a choice, it does not mean that the revolt against the establishment is on the the Right only.