Sfdebris.net

I remember years ago the only answer i could get out of them: that will never happen, they are slaves to their religion etc...

Is it? Were they ever prepared?

Well, given that the Third Way has essentially won all over the place, I'd say the left is in a tough position against the socially liberal right. Just look at how Bernie Sanders lost to Hillary Clinton; the Socially Liberal right knocked out the Left. The part of the spectrum previously occupied by Rockefeller Republicans has been annexed by the Democrats.

Were they ever prepared? Absolutely. JFK beat Nixon after all. Carter beat Ford. After the Republicans moved to the Right, so did the Democrats, then Clinton beat Brown and US politics has been dominated by Market Liberals and Social Conservatives ever since.

Now, if the Third Way isn't "Socially Liberal Right" enough for you, then I'd say the left have been doing nothing but winning for the past 37 years given they've come out ahead of Rockefeller Republicans and the Libertarians in every presidential election in the period.

TGLS wrote: Now, if the Third Way isn't "Socially Liberal Right" enough for you, then I'd say the left have been doing nothing but winning for the past 37 years given they've come out ahead of Rockefeller Republicans and the Libertarians in every presidential election in the period.

Yeah but the vast majority of those were neolibs as opposed to leftist libertarians. So in terms of economic policy - leftist ideals have been out of vogue longer that the time period specified. Regulations have gotten thinner under every president to the point nearly unfettered bribery is legal in the united states now.

Can neolibs handle a socially liberal right? no because they are playing the exact same game and the right will always play it better - the left needs a strong populist message and a rejection of the neoliberal policies that have kept them popular with the corporate elite.

Their is no socially liberal Right of any significant influence. Unless you count bigotry against LGBT, women, racial minorities, foreigners, non-Christians (especially Muslims), refugees, and other immigrants as "socially liberal".

Pretty much the only things the neo-fascist cabal is "liberal" about is groping models and cheating on their spouses.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Their is no socially liberal Right of any significant influence. Unless you count bigotry against LGBT, women, racial minorities, foreigners, non-Christians (especially Muslims), refugees, and other immigrants as "socially liberal".

Pretty much the only things the neo-fascist cabal is "liberal" about is groping models and cheating on their spouses.

What do you mean fascist? Kinda tired of the word being thrown around for everything.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Their is no socially liberal Right of any significant influence. Unless you count bigotry against LGBT, women, racial minorities, foreigners, non-Christians (especially Muslims), refugees, and other immigrants as "socially liberal".

This is a fair point - the closest you'd get are your prototypical libertarians but they usually get shuffled off into the corner with the libertarian left. The two authoritarian sides are the ones duking it out and the rest of us are caught on the sidelines.

Rasp wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Their is no socially liberal Right of any significant influence. Unless you count bigotry against LGBT, women, racial minorities, foreigners, non-Christians (especially Muslims), refugees, and other immigrants as "socially liberal".

This is a fair point - the closest you'd get are your prototypical libertarians but they usually get shuffled off into the corner with the libertarian left. The two authoritarian sides are the ones duking it out and the rest of us are caught on the sidelines.

Well, I wouldn't call the bulk of the Democratic Party authoritarian. Not compared to the Republicans, and not by most standards unless you define authoritarian as "anyone not a libertarian" (which seems to be how libertarians define it).

And when they are authoritarian, its generally not targeted at specific vulnerable groups.

Reg. my use of the word fascist above: I'm referring to the current Right's tendency towards rampant xenophobia and authoritarianism, and ambitions of restoring an (illusory) sense of past national greatness by persecuting minorities and foreigners.

Agent Vinod wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Their is no socially liberal Right of any significant influence. Unless you count bigotry against LGBT, women, racial minorities, foreigners, non-Christians (especially Muslims), refugees, and other immigrants as "socially liberal".

Pretty much the only things the neo-fascist cabal is "liberal" about is groping models and cheating on their spouses.

What do you mean fascist? Kinda tired of the word being thrown around for everything.

Anyone they don't agree with, because "Right" means evil.

The Romulan Republic wrote:

Rasp wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Their is no socially liberal Right of any significant influence. Unless you count bigotry against LGBT, women, racial minorities, foreigners, non-Christians (especially Muslims), refugees, and other immigrants as "socially liberal".

This is a fair point - the closest you'd get are your prototypical libertarians but they usually get shuffled off into the corner with the libertarian left. The two authoritarian sides are the ones duking it out and the rest of us are caught on the sidelines.

Well, I wouldn't call the bulk of the Democratic Party authoritarian. Not compared to the Republicans, and not by most standards unless you define authoritarian as "anyone not a libertarian" (which seems to be how libertarians define it).

And when they are authoritarian, its generally not targeted at specific vulnerable groups.

Reg. my use of the word fascist above: I'm referring to the current Right's tendency towards rampant xenophobia and authoritarianism, and ambitions of restoring an (illusory) sense of past national greatness by persecuting minorities and foreigners.

Democrats increasingly want to restrict speech.

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/05/20/hate-speech/

And the Bush policies went on after Obama was elected. How is enforcing existing immigration laws persecution or how is not allowing people across the border persecution? Where are the documents that prove that the Repubs want to restore America by persecuting those two groups?

Ignoring whether Yougov has merit as a news source, that link specifies hate speech. I hope you are not trying to treat efforts to stop people from encouraging mistreatment of others based on stuff like being gay as being equivalent to, as an example, Trump acting as though the Press does not have the right to seriously criticize him. On a related note, I assume you are therefore against efforts to regulate efforts to stir up hatred of, for the sake of a few examples, black people and LGBT people?