LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+28 31 3
Published 3 years ago with 27 Comments
  • Badge of Honor

    What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party? What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party?
 
Additional Contributions:

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
Conversation 20 comments by 6 users
  • [Deleted Profile]

    [This comment was removed]

  • nicoscope
    +11

    Very telling that what would be considered "radical-left" policies per the article would be deemed "centrist" or "center-left" mainstream policies in most of the industrialized Western world. You know your Left-Right axis is out of whack when something as basic as unions having the effective right to bargain collectively is considered "radically liberal".

  • TwoADay
    +4

    Once Liberalism becomes part of the establishment, it can no longer be called Liberal.

    US Democrats have done a good job of opposing the GOP's reactionist policies in the fields of civil rights and environmentalism, but neo-Liberal economic policy is a huge setback for our social democracy. Twentieth-century Democrats recognized the need for a regulated financial sector, as well as a strong social safety net. These policies are the backbone of the social ladder, and help lessen the negative effects of economic inequality. Thanks to the policies of Reagan and the acquiescence of Clinton, much of those policies have been dismantled.

    • spaceghoti
      +4

      Once Liberalism becomes part of the establishment, it can no longer be called Liberal.

      If you could elaborate on this it would be appreciated. What precisely do you mean here?

      US Democrats have done a good job of opposing the GOP's reactionist policies in the fields of civil rights and environmentalism, but neo-Liberal economic policy is a huge setback for our social democracy.

      If you're referring to the unfortunate economic policies of the last thirty years I agree. But they're the consequence of allowing conservatives to pull our politics to the extreme right, to the point where even our "centrists" are to the right of where Republicans were in Nixon's day. There's no way Ronald Reagan could get nominated for anything in the modern GOP.

      • TwoADay
        +4

        What precisely do you mean here?

        I was paraphrasing someone else. It simply means that the definition of a Liberal movement is one that strives for social progress. If a Liberal movement achieves its goal and no longer strives for progress (only defending the new status quo), then it can no longer be called Liberal.

        ..they're the consequence of allowing conservatives to pull our politics to the extreme right...

        I would say that neo-Liberalism is the result of corporate influence, not the GOP. Clinton was the first Democrat to put the election results ahead of the mandat, and his campaign staffers recognized that corporate donors were the key to winning modern elections.

        • spaceghoti
          +3

          I was paraphrasing someone else. It simply means that the definition of a Liberal movement is one that strives for social progress. If a Liberal movement achieves its goal and no longer strives for progress (only defending the new status quo), then it can no longer be called Liberal.

          Ah, then I certainly agree.

          I would say that neo-Liberalism is the result of corporate influence, not the GOP. Clinton was the first Democrat to put the election results ahead of the mandat, and his campaign staffers recognized that corporate donors were the key to winning modern elections.

          I think we can safely pin corporate influence over government on modern conservatives. Clinton's "pivot" was a reaction to conservative victories in an attempt to catch up to the change in demographics.

          • TwoADay
            +4

            As a result of Clinton's pivot, Progressivism has lost its voice in the national conversation. Liberals need to oppose the GOP, obviously, but they also need to oppose the neo-Liberal influences in the Democratic party.

Here are some other snaps you may like...