Tea Party Founder: It's Over

[courts]

It never began.

This. It was just the conservative movement flexing its muscles under a different name.

you mean "conservative" movement. as has been pointed out even by a lot of leftists by now on forum "conservatism" in the us doesn't really exist. it's more of a vague umbrella term for anyone that isn't a social democrat than an actual ideology.

It is ironic that while you guys are legitimately pointing out flaws in the traditional definition of "conservatism", you do so by relying on a completely absurd definition of "social democracy".

But anyway, I agree with what you meant.

there's a distinction between people believing in 'social democracy' and the us actually being a functional social democracy. i never claimed it was. but is it really going too far to characterize the average american progressive as a social democrat?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It never began.

This. It was just the conservative movement flexing its muscles under a different name.

you mean "conservative" movement. as has been pointed out even by a lot of leftists by now on forum "conservatism" in the us doesn't really exist. it's more of a vague umbrella term for anyone that isn't a social democrat than an actual ideology.

It is ironic that while you guys are legitimately pointing out flaws in the traditional definition of "conservatism", you do so by relying on a completely absurd definition of "social democracy".

But anyway, I agree with what you meant.

there's a distinction between people believing in 'social democracy' and the us actually being a functional social democracy. i never claimed it was. but is it really going too far to characterize the average american progressive as a social democrat?

Yes. It's going much too far.

I would argue that there are very few actual Social Democrats in America, and that all of them are placed too much to the left of the mainstream to ever meet success at the national level. I would add that, to a lesser extent, this is increasingly true in all of the Western world.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Don't worry. They'll come up with a new brand for the same old lies like "right to work".

[courts]

It never began.

This. It was just the conservative movement flexing its muscles under a different name.

you mean "conservative" movement. as has been pointed out even by a lot of leftists by now on forum "conservatism" in the us doesn't really exist. it's more of a vague umbrella term for anyone that isn't a social democrat than an actual ideology.

It is ironic that while you guys are legitimately pointing out flaws in the traditional definition of "conservatism", you do so by relying on a completely absurd definition of "social democracy".

But anyway, I agree with what you meant.

there's a distinction between people believing in 'social democracy' and the us actually being a functional social democracy. i never claimed it was. but is it really going too far to characterize the average american progressive as a social democrat?

Yes. It's going much too far.

I would argue that there are very few actual Social Democrats in America, and that all of them are placed too much to the left of the mainstream to ever meet success at the national level. I would add that, to a lesser extent, this is increasingly true in all of the Western world.

what would you have as your criteria? is it the comparative lack of support for outright nationalizing things or a dole? that doesn't seem like a huge ideological difference.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It never began.

This. It was just the conservative movement flexing its muscles under a different name.

you mean "conservative" movement. as has been pointed out even by a lot of leftists by now on forum "conservatism" in the us doesn't really exist. it's more of a vague umbrella term for anyone that isn't a social democrat than an actual ideology.

It is ironic that while you guys are legitimately pointing out flaws in the traditional definition of "conservatism", you do so by relying on a completely absurd definition of "social democracy".

But anyway, I agree with what you meant.

there's a distinction between people believing in 'social democracy' and the us actually being a functional social democracy. i never claimed it was. but is it really going too far to characterize the average american progressive as a social democrat?

Yes. It's going much too far.

I would argue that there are very few actual Social Democrats in America, and that all of them are placed too much to the left of the mainstream to ever meet success at the national level. I would add that, to a lesser extent, this is increasingly true in all of the Western world.

what would you have as your criteria? is it the comparative lack of support for outright nationalizing things or a dole? that doesn't seem like a huge ideological difference.

Defining Social Democracy has actually been one of my main intellectual quests in the past few years. I've had a chance to be able to write an essay about this in a class one year ago, which I later posted on the forum (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167132.0). To synthesize, I identified as one of the key component of the Social Democratic doctrine what I called a principle of social citizenship, which endows a citizens with universal and inalienable social rights (to borrow the words of a wise man, rights "to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it" ).

It is pretty clear today that no major American politician has embraced such an ambitious ideal. Sure, they might argue that providing some people with some of these things might be "fair", or "economically efficient". They might mention the government's responsibility in "leveling the playing field" and allowing for equal opportunities, but no major politicians is going to make the case that these right are universal, and in no way conditioned to being "deserving" or similar sh*t. If prior actions were not sufficient, Clinton's Welfare Reform marked the official death of Social Democracy in America.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That sounds a lot like how Obama campaigned in 2008 and what he pushed for in his first two years in office. I don't see what Obama would qualify as if not that (and please don't give the "Obama would be a conservative by European standards" thing, you are far too smart and well informed to buy into that crap, not to mention actually familiar with European conservatives.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

That sounds a lot like how Obama campaigned in 2008 and what he pushed for in his first two years in office. I don't see what Obama would qualify as if not that (and please don't give the "Obama would be a conservative by European standards" thing, you are far too smart and well informed to buy into that crap, not to mention actually familiar with European conservatives.)

He might indeed be a closeted Social Democrat, but his accomplishments (and even his attempts) fall short of that ideal. It's of course ridiculous to say Obama would be a Harper-Sarkozy-type European Conservative, but as I said, the problem is not limited to the US. Though I have to admit that in his speeches, I often hear social democratic undertones and I feel like, now that his ability to pass policy is extremely limited, Obama has made its main goal to shift the public's political attitudes and instill a more progressive thought. And this indeed includes reemphasizing the social aspects of citizenship. So yes, I definitely give him credit for that.