What is so radical about the Left right now?

[zoogs]

The Occupy Wall Street movement is a good example. Of course there are extremists -- okay, let's be clear, none of these are actually close to political extremism. But they do exist somewhat on the fringes of general politics.

 

The difference is the Tea Party carries sizable weight in actual Republican politics. You see these guys saying, any Republican Congressman who doesn't vote this way on the default or the CR is going to face a challenger from within their party in their own district, with the expectation that they'll probably lose. Occupy Wall Street has no, has never had any seats. The Tea Party is a completely different story.

 

That's not really a left/right issue, though. With the majority party in power, you can expect the establishment (thankfully) to rule themselves. With the frustrated minority, you get this 'tail wagging the dog' phenomenon.

[knapplc]

What impact has the Occupy movement had on modern politics? What did the Occupiers actually do, aside from a few protests? I would have a hard time coming up with any real impact. "It's not right and I don't like it so I'm going to live in a tent" isn't much of a political movement. The isolated riots in Oakland can be attributed more to Oaklanders than the Occupiers.

 

There certainly can't be an argument made that the Occupiers = the Tea Party. Where have the Occupiers been the last two years?

[zoogs]

Yeah. They exist, but they didn't and I'm not sure they ever really did anything.

[sd'sker]

it seemed like the occupy movement just wanted to raise awareness to their perceived injustices more than anything. basically, they thought wall street has too much power and is deferred to too often. people need to know that they care about that. they hoped politicians would do something about it. hardly a movement as much as an awareness campaign, at best.

[TGHusker]

The Occupy Wall Street movement is a good example. Of course there are extremists -- okay, let's be clear, none of these are actually close to political extremism. But they do exist somewhat on the fringes of general politics.

 

The difference is the Tea Party carries sizable weight in actual Republican politics. You see these guys saying, any Republican Congressman who doesn't vote this way on the default or the CR is going to face a challenger from within their party in their own district, with the expectation that they'll probably lose. Occupy Wall Street has no, has never had any seats. The Tea Party is a completely different story.

 

That's not really a left/right issue, though. With the majority party in power, you can expect the establishment (thankfully) to rule themselves. With the frustrated minority, you get this 'tail wagging the dog' phenomenon.

What are the extreme positions of the Tea Party? Can you identify them? I ask not in support or opposition to your claim but because I'm not sure I (even as a conservative) can define what the TP believes across the board.

[knapplc]

The crickets are becoming deafening.

[BigRedBuster]

What impact has the Occupy movement had on modern politics? What did the Occupiers actually do, aside from a few protests? I would have a hard time coming up with any real impact. "It's not right and I don't like it so I'm going to live in a tent" isn't much of a political movement. The isolated riots in Oakland can be attributed more to Oaklanders than the Occupiers.

 

There certainly can't be an argument made that the Occupiers = the Tea Party. Where have the Occupiers been the last two years?

 

 

I probably would agree with this. It really was a totally meaningless protest when you look at what it actually accomplished. Pretty much everyone else just looked at them as a bunch of freaks and forgot about it.

 

The Tea Party also has a bunch of freaks that don't have a clue in life. The difference is how the political left handled the Occupiers compared to how the political right handled the Tea Partiers. The political left pretty much ignored the occupiers. The political right dropped down and sucked what ever body part you so choose of the Tea Party to get them to please oh please vote for us.

 

What a pathetic disgrace of what conservative politics has become in this country. And, this is from someone who has always thought he was a conservative.

[carlfense]

What are the extreme positions of the Tea Party?

The events of the last few weeks are an obvious example.

[carlfense]

What impact has the Occupy movement had on modern politics? What did the Occupiers actually do, aside from a few protests? I would have a hard time coming up with any real impact. "It's not right and I don't like it so I'm going to live in a tent" isn't much of a political movement. The isolated riots in Oakland can be attributed more to Oaklanders than the Occupiers.

 

There certainly can't be an argument made that the Occupiers = the Tea Party. Where have the Occupiers been the last two years?

 

 

I probably would agree with this. It really was a totally meaningless protest when you look at what it actually accomplished. Pretty much everyone else just looked at them as a bunch of freaks and forgot about it.

 

The Tea Party also has a bunch of freaks that don't have a clue in life. The difference is how the political left handled the Occupiers compared to how the political right handled the Tea Partiers. The political left pretty much ignored the occupiers. The political right dropped down and sucked what ever body part you so choose of the Tea Party to get them to please oh please vote for us.

 

What a pathetic disgrace of what conservative politics has become in this country. And, this is from someone who has always thought he was a conservative.

+1.

[TGHusker]

What impact has the Occupy movement had on modern politics? What did the Occupiers actually do, aside from a few protests? I would have a hard time coming up with any real impact. "It's not right and I don't like it so I'm going to live in a tent" isn't much of a political movement. The isolated riots in Oakland can be attributed more to Oaklanders than the Occupiers.

 

There certainly can't be an argument made that the Occupiers = the Tea Party. Where have the Occupiers been the last two years?

 

 

I probably would agree with this. It really was a totally meaningless protest when you look at what it actually accomplished. Pretty much everyone else just looked at them as a bunch of freaks and forgot about it.

 

The Tea Party also has a bunch of freaks that don't have a clue in life. The difference is how the political left handled the Occupiers compared to how the political right handled the Tea Partiers. The political left pretty much ignored the occupiers. The political right dropped down and sucked what ever body part you so choose of the Tea Party to get them to please oh please vote for us.

 

What a pathetic disgrace of what conservative politics has become in this country. And, this is from someone who has always thought he was a conservative.

+1.

I'll add to yours Carl I really don't get what they thought they could accomplish - and if this is the definition of the Tea Party (the gov't shutdown without a snowballs chance in hell) - conservatives need to back away slowly before it explodes and find a new path forward.

[JJ Husker]

The far left may not currently be seen as being as radical as what we have seen recently from the tea party. Acting to shutdown the government or to let the country default are radical maneuvers to be sure. Over the course of our history the natural tendency has been to grow increasingly more liberal. I think this contributes greatly to the perception of the right becoming more extreme. However, I don't feel the right is really any more extreme than it has been. It is just now being viewed in the context of a society where the left seems to be more acceptable.

 

To identify what the far left is doing that is comparable requires identifying what a far left position entails. Some would say that the basis for being far left is seeking equality of outcomes, regardless of effort, and attempting redistribution of wealth. Viewed in that light, I don't see how anyone could say the democratic party is anything other than generally far left. But we are being conditioned, almost brainwashed, by the media and current day politicians that equal outcomes and redistribution of wealth are not extreme positions and that they are desirable things. It is almost impossible to claim these things are in fact extreme because they are so widely considered acceptable now.

 

I'm not going to debate the virtues or fallacies of either position. I just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents in an attempt to answer the question posed in the OP.

[Husker_x]

Yeah. They exist, but they didn't and I'm not sure they ever really did anything.

 

This. The left definitely has its extremists, but nothing as politically material as the Tea Party caucus. I'm sure you can find some tree hugging granola crunchers who want to blow up corporate headquarters to make room for communes, but they don't work in the halls of congress. The conservative wingnuts, on the other hand, had the speaker of the house by a leash for two solid weeks.

[BigRedBuster]

The Democrats long ago realized that even though individuals in the party would agree with certain radical left groups, they didn't need to pander to them in campaigns and while in office because they knew that those radically left people would NEVER vote for a Republican. So, they had their vote locked up, they could in little bits and pieces throw them a little bone every once in a while but it never was became a huge issue because they tended to always be left leaning but closer to the middle.

 

I'm beginning to believe that the demise of the Republican party started with Ross Perot. That was the first time a conservative ran for office outside the Republican party and took enough votes that the Republican didn't win. That scared everyone in the party enough that they thought they needed to make sure they go over board to bring those people back into voting for them.

 

So, yes....there are still radical left people and groups. Those people still tend to vote Democratic. But, the Democrats have mastered the ability to keep their votes while not specifically making those radical views the center points of their campaigns and political actions.

[knapplc]

So what I'm hearing is, there are radical Left people in the Democrat party right now, but nobody has been able to identify them or specifically what they're doing. Is this fair to say, or did I miss specifics somewhere?

[BigRedBuster]

I guess you may need to define "people in the Democratic party".

 

It wasn't that long ago that Al Gore was going around with a fairly radical movie that he produced about global warming. Now, this isn't to debate global warming but his movie was so far out in left field and used as a scare tactic that it was pathetic. He goes off and wins a Nobel Piece Prize for the dang thing. Meanwhile, he was doing nothing in his own life to do what he was proposing as using less fossil fuels. I consider myself an environmentalist and I admit that humans have some factor in climate change. But, don't feed me full of crap with a scare tactic movie.

 

They then had Michael Moore going around making movies (common theme here) accusing people in the Republican administration of some pretty dang serious things without anything other than some sketchy circumstantial evidence. One heck of a lot of Democrats believed him. Heck, if I remember right, he was even honored at one of their conventions.

 

It is easy to not act radical when you have the power. But, the Democrats have proven just like the Republicans when they lose power, they will do what ever it takes to gain it back.

 

You have Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson...etc. who (my opinion) promote racial divide for their own gain who also support the Democratic party. I'm not talking about minority rights for which I'm for. I'm talking about fostering the divide for personal gain by these people.

 

Unions at one time were needed. Then, there was a time when they had way more power than was healthy. They were violent and very destructive in both what they would do anything to gain and their tactics to do so and they supported the Democratic party. Unions have lost a lot of their power but I believe they still hold some influence in the Democratic party.

 

You have radical environmentalist groups like Green Peace who have many ulterior motives other than actually saving the planet and they support the Democratic party.

 

My post earlier was pointing out that the Democrats have support from some pretty radical left groups. They have just done a good job of not making them an issue in campaigns even though they are obviously doing enough to continue receiving their support.