"There is something wrong with our media and our politics"

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Take a look at the link, please.

Someone sent me a Bill Maher clip in response to my last OP.

And it seems to be saying something that jives with the UK as well as the US.
"The centrists have moved over to the right, the centtre-right has gone over further to make room for them, and there is nobody on the left arguing for and defending a progresssive agenda that is straight up about gun control, gay marraige, universal healthcare, legalising pot , and so forth..."

Yeah, that was Bill Maher talking, and I make him right. We have the same thing happening over here in l'il ol' England, too, BTW. Well, we did till Caroline Lucas got in - she is about the only progressive person in Westminster, if you discount Tory and labour rebels prepared to defy the party whips.

So, I ask if this take on American politics seems about right to you -
" they call Obama a socialist - he's not even a Liberal" Says Maher. But the clip is not all, the presented goes on to discuss the situation himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jc4U4ugi_4&feature=related

I wonder if folks here agree with him and if they would suggest a way out of this impasse.
Why is there no progressive party in the States? why is no one prepared to talk straight about legalising cannibis, and all the other issues?
it is claimed that many Americans support such moves, but the political initiative just isn't there.

In the UK, I blame the financial system for this situation. See, it takes a lot of cash to mount an election campaign. and if you ant to get on in politics, you need financial support. End result is that even leftist/ left of centre parties have to either ask members for money, or take donations from business interests. And that is exactly what happens. Corporate interests own both major UK parties. the greens and others operate on a shoestring, with mostly volunteer staff and members donations.

In effect, we have the best democracy money can buy, as I have said before. one remedy for this is to fund all political campaigns out of a public fund. give any party willing to put up x number of candidates a certain amount of air time and advertising. tie it to membership rolls if you wish, but allow legitimate political movements to put their case to the electorate on an even footing.

Maybe there are other issues that need to be tackled, but that , to me , is the main one. We need to look at how the political system gets financed, as well as reform how elections are done.

Comments

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

He went on to say: the democrats have moved to the center-right, and the republicans have gone to the mental asylum.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Well, his obvious political biases aside, it's true that there's no real "leftist" party in the US, and there hasn't been for a time. I don't know if this is seen as good or bad by most Americans, but when seen from outside the whole political landscape in the US look awfully tilted to the one side. It must be something about the culture.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

To paraphrase the "best democracy money can buy":

Every nation gets the leaders it deserves.

The root cause of said problem is usually within the society itself, seldom somewhere else. Both US and UK share something in this respect: oligarchism. Russia is also having it now. Is there a leftist party in Russia? The Communists are a shadow of their own self, and they're no serious threat to Putin's rightist populist grip on power (don't be fooled by Medvedev's presidency). I can't speak with such certainty about the US but looked from outside, corporate oligarchism seems to reign every facet of social and economic life there, too. So it's normal to have things so much tilted to one side.

As a centrist, I do agree with some aspects of center-right ideology while supporting some of the center-left. I think those could be compatible under certain circumstances. But for the time being I don't see a chance of balance happening in the US. The UK is another story - I think it's mostly temporary there.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I think Oligarchy is being too generous. Take Wisconsin for example. Workers pay into pension funds. Government, under the coercion of the bankers allows the bankers to start treating the financial system as a casino, only they get to gamble with the money in the workers pension funds. Wall St bets the farm, loses, government gives them a new farm then tries to take what's left of the workers pensions to pay for it.

That's flat out kleptocracy.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Well, if you take a serious look at it the USA's losing the ability to pretend it's anything more than your generic New World oligarchy. Compare the USA to say, Argentina or Brazil and it stops looking so unusual among Western states, and starts looking a lot like your average New World society, only with aircraft carriers and nukes.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

"The centrists have moved over to the right, the centtre-right has gone over further to make room for them, and there is nobody on the left arguing for and defending a progresssive agenda that is straight up about gun control, gay marraige, universal healthcare, legalising pot , and so forth..."


Silly.

We now have a black president, states with medical marijuana, and the end of don't ask don't tell.

Is that moving to the right?


" they call Obama a socialist - he's not even a Liberal"

President != all-powerful dictator.
He can't just pass what the extremists in his party want passed.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

First of all, he's as black as he's white. Although he may appear and be perceived as black, he had "white upbringing", mostly. If I could call it so.

And secondly, how does having a black president solve the issues of the black community?

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Until we elect an incompetent underachieving black president with a C average who was brought into power by his daddy's money and position, we do not have racial equality in America.

Medial marijuana is a centrist position. The somewhat leftist position is outright legalization, the leftist position is the government giving away drugs of choice to addicts upon request.

We don't have universal health care. We have levels of health care based on those who can afford it. The liberal position is medicare for all.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Ooooh ! he is black - ok, but is he "straight up about gay marraige, legalising pot, universal healthcare" as maher put it.

End of don't ask don't tell =/= being straight about defending gay marraige
expanding medicaid and medicare =/= Universal healthcare
medical marijuana in *some* states =/= legalising soft drugs and calling off the cops to deal with real crime and leaving dope heads to do their ting in peace like the tobacco leaf freaks do already.

Sorry - he is a centrist, not a leftie.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

What I want to know is why having medical marijuana, an end to DADT and (especially) a black president are issues that the right would fight against.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Gun control, gay marriage and legalizing pot have nothing to do with leftist politics or economics. Progressivism is not liberalism. Liberalism is not progressivism. Democrats just cop the term to sound cool.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

broadly speaking , arguing for
keeping things as they were = conservatism = right wing politics
change for the sake of change = lunacy
changing things because that will mean progress = left wing politics.

If liberalism is different from progressivness, plese demonstrate this , using examples.

also, sending kids to school instead of packing them off to work down the mines was once a radical notion. but we all grew up with it, and now its mainstream as buying fair trade coffee in starbucks.
what was leftist once is now middle ground or even non political.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Why is there no progressive party in the States?

There is a progressive party in the US, the Democratic Party plays that role, and the Green Party exists for those who don't think the Democratic Party is liberal enough.

But the real reason liberal politics doesn't take off here is because liberalism borders on a fringe viewpoint (http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx) in the US. To put it another way, more people believe the US government was involved, actively or passively, with the 9/11 attacks (http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll) than consider themselves liberals, and about the same number believe Obama is not a citizen or aren't sure of it (http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2009/07/disturbing-poll-on-obamas-citizenship.html).

why is no one prepared to talk straight about legalising cannibis, and all the other issues?

The pot issue in particular isn't really a progressive issue, but a libertarian one, one that the libertarian right has long been on board with and the far left has glommed onto in some respects.

In effect, we have the best democracy money can buy, as I have said before. one remedy for this is to fund all political campaigns out of a public fund.

Putting aside that my money shouldn't be going to people who advocate things that I believe are detrimental, there is a strong belief among many on the left that it's a messaging problem here in the states. The problem, however, is not that people aren't hearing the message - it's that they hear the message and reject it.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

What do you think about the war(s) in Iraq, and do you agree that a considerably large chunk of the money you give to your government is being spent for waging that war? Same question about Afghanistan, and same question about building a huge military might to prop up the American "interests" in the world (whatever that means).

[usekh.livejournal.com]

That is because one of the great successes of the right has been to make 'Liberal' a pejorative term. When you start to break down to what people actually believe in and want, most work out to be fairly liberal by a lot of standards.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Is there? I seem to remember that movement died in the 1920s. There is a political party that acknowledges society has changed since the 1910s, but that's not the same thing.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

How to solve the problem? Prohibit corporate contributions in any form and take our democracy back.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

"I know how to do it! Limit the information people hear!"

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Someone sent me a Bill Maher clip in response to my last OP.

'twas me, kind and noble sir ;)

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

indeed, and Ii recommended you for an award, alas, it did not arrive. we have not reaaly got to grips with modern media , methinks...

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Ugh, Maher.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I'd be down for publicly-funded campaigns. As it stands we have a plutocracy at best.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

s/he who pays the piper and all that. yeah , let us pay and we will see who gets in as a result.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Using tax dollars to fund political parties is yet another excuse to take money away from hard working taxpayers and to give it to politicians. Wave around free money for political parties and every freeloading, unemployable fringe weirdo will pop out of the woodwork, demanding to run for office.
Let the people decide. If the policies of a political party are not compelling enough to inspire people to donate to it, then it does not deserve a lavish political campaign paid for by long suffering taxpayers.
As for corporations ... impose a limit on their donations.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I think thats a little too baby/bathwater to just throw out the idea like that. I agree its important that there be a system where you only have allowance for candidates that make a certain level of popularity, I think that one is a fairly obvious issue that any system would have mechanisms to deal with though.

The nice thing is that if you had such a thing where legitimate candidates could run without having to gain the backing of a major party to raise the sort of money that you need in today's politics, we might see a little more variety of political positions than 'not the other guy who by the way will end your life and country and other various bad things'.

This is pure anncedata but bear with me...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Who actually believes anything they see on the news now a days?

Who actually takes anything a politician says at face value?

I know I don't.

I suspect that the public spectrum of "Left vs. Right" is far broader than advocates on either side give it credit for. If you're a promenant journalist in the nation's capital it may be tempting to assume that everyone else spends as much time as you do (nearly every waking hour) thinking about politics. Truth is we don't. Likewise, if you've got mouthes to feed and bills to pay, does it really matter who's picture hangs in the DMV.

The result is that each looks at the other and marvels at the amount of mental energy being "Wasted".

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

What he says is true, the Democrats here would be right-wingers in the EU and the right-wingers here would be the Le Pen Right or the British National Party in Europe.