Left 3.0

[wgbgator]

An interesting and insightful conservative analysis of the emerging left:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...article/139271

The left side of the American political spectrum has undergone an extraordinary transformation over the past dozen years. Perhaps because it remains a work in progress, the extent of this transformation has gone largely unremarked and seems underappreciated even among those who have been carrying it out. Forty years after the forces of the “New Left” managed to deliver the Democratic presidential nomination to their preferred candidate, George McGovern, only to see him lose the general election to Richard Nixon in a 49-state landslide, the United States is home to a newer Left. Its political hopes repose not in a man able to muster less than 40 percent of the vote nationwide, but in the convincingly reelected president of the United States, Barack Obama. This newer Left is confident in itself, united both in its description of the problems the country faces and in how to go about addressing them. This Left is conscious of itself as a movement, and believes it is on the rise. It has already managed to reshape American politics, and its successes so far have hardly exhausted its promise. Policies are changing under its influence. And its opponents do not seem to have found an effective way to counter it politically.

It’s beyond my purpose here to explore the history of the Left in American and its relation to American electoral politics. One story is its ideological evolution, from the socialists and anarchists of the early twentieth century, through the battles of the communist and anti-communist Left of mid-century, on to the birth of the New Left in the turbulent 1960s, through the quiescence of the Left during the period of neoliberal (i.e., conservative) dominance for the generation following the election of Ronald Reagan. Or one could tell the story in terms of the progressive movement at the end of the nineteenth century, through fdr’s New Deal, to lbj’s Great Society, on through the primary challenge Sen. Ted Kennedy launched against Jimmy Carter, its failure, and Bill Clinton’s emergence as a “New Democrat” distinct from the old liberal partisans of an expansive role for the federal government.

Both stories, however, come together with the emergence of the newer Left — call it Left 3.0, tracing the ideological progression from old Left to New Left to today’s newer Left. Left 3.0 is not only an ideological movement, but also effectively controls (or rather guides) a political party fully competitive at the national level. Left 3.0 is an entity whose internal divisions are minuscule in comparison to the shared convictions that hold it together. Left 3.0 is a creature of its times, well-organized and fully synced to the digital culture out of which it emerged. And Left 3.0 has come into its own at a time, not coincidentally, when its political rival, the gop electoral coalition, already under strain because of shifting demographics, is deeply divided over vexing social issues on which Left 3.0 offers clear answers.

[Juggernautz]

I'd like to say you're "right" but that would be blasphemus.

[JerseyGator01]

Please ignore huge fundraising advantage from sources still unknown. All hype, which will be obvious once the messiah leaves and investigative journalism possibly shows its face again.

The left isn't any different in Jersey over the past 15 years, just older leaders.

[madgator]

The divisions in the New Left are not miniscule.....they are actually extremely deep and varied.

where they come together though is through the most powerful motivator of them all.....MONEY!


what else could unite an environmentalist in northern california with a union coal miner in Pennsylvania?


Access to easy government money is at the heart of everything that democrat politics revolves around. Today's democratic party has perfected 3 things 1. united narratives through coordinated media efforts 2. data mining 3. writing checks from the national trust

[mdgator05]

An interesting perspective. It makes some good points but misses a few things on what it terms "the new left."

First, he hints at this but never really develops the point that the new left has a fundamental recognition of the power of markets. Many of the new generation were people who were children, teenagers, and young adults in the 1990s. They developed in a world in which the markets created countless new firms in the tech industry, some of which have become dominant firms in the last decade.

The author contrasts the centrist positions of Clinton with this new left. What he doesn't realize is that the general acceptance of the market is very tightly ingrained with this new left, much of which was motivated by the centrism of Clinton on economic matters. That is why Silicon Valley, New York City, Boston, Seattle, etc. are so Democratic while being filled with some of the most successful capitalists in the world, many of whom are themselves Democrats.

The point the author seems to miss is that with their respect for the power of markets, many in this new generation recognize its limits. One of the main limits, as articulated somewhat poorly by the author, is the market power generated by either generational wealth or generational access to wealth-generating activities (such as the access of legacies to colleges or access to social networks with more wealth generating potential).

Another limit is the inability of markets to effectively price externalities. So, for example, say I run a coal plant, which produces power for $1. Lets say that this plant causes an increased risk of cancer that has an economic cost of $1 per each one of these units of power. So let's say that somebody comes and offers me a chance to switch my plant to another fuel, with no cancer risk and a cost of $1.50. From a social perspective, this is clearly far better, as each unit of power created by coal costs society $2, $1 of direct cost and $1 of externality. However, from an individual perspective as the plant owner, I would have to charge a higher price for the delivery of the same product, electrical power, which opens me up to a competitor that could build a coal power plant next door and charge a lower price.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by madgator

The divisions in the New Left are not miniscule.....they are actually extremely deep and varied.

where they come together though is through the most powerful motivator of them all.....MONEY!


what else could unite an environmentalist in northern california with a union coal miner in Pennsylvania?


Access to easy government money is at the heart of everything that democrat politics revolves around. Today's democratic party has perfected 3 things 1. united narratives through coordinated media efforts 2. data mining 3. writing checks from the national trust

I think the author would argue, as would I, that the Democratic Party has largely lost the coal miners in the past couple of elections.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ION_RECAP.html

This is the shift from 2004-2008, which the author is identifying as the point where this "Left 3.0" came into full effect. Notice the counties that shifted more Republican compared to 2004. You had a few counties in Arizona, Massachusetts, and Alaska, which are easily explained by home state candidate issues (Mass. was the home state of the 2004 Democratic nominee, Arizona and Alaska were the home states of the 2008 Republican nominees). Southern Louisiana also shifted more Republican, likely due to demographic shifts due to Katrina. Outside of that, it is pretty much a straight line of Appalachian territory through Tennessee, Arkansas, and into East and North Texas and Oklahoma. These are the areas where the development from "Left 2.0" to "Left 3.0" are hurting Democrats.

[madgator]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

An interesting perspective. It makes some good points but misses a few things on what it terms "the new left."

First, he hints at this but never really develops the point that the new left has a fundamental recognition of the power of markets. Many of the new generation were people who were children, teenagers, and young adults in the 1990s. They developed in a world in which the markets created countless new firms in the tech industry, some of which have become dominant firms in the last decade.

The author contrasts the centrist positions of Clinton with this new left. What he doesn't realize is that the general acceptance of the market is very tightly ingrained with this new left, much of which was motivated by the centrism of Clinton on economic matters. That is why Silicon Valley, New York City, Boston, Seattle, etc. are so Democratic while being filled with some of the most successful capitalists in the world, many of whom are themselves Democrats.

The point the author seems to miss is that with their respect for the power of markets, many in this new generation recognize its limits. One of the main limits, as articulated somewhat poorly by the author, is the market power generated by either generational wealth or generational access to wealth-generating activities (such as the access of legacies to colleges or access to social networks with more wealth generating potential).

Another limit is the inability of markets to effectively price externalities. So, for example, say I run a coal plant, which produces power for $1. Lets say that this plant causes an increased risk of cancer that has an economic cost of $1 per each one of these units of power. So let's say that somebody comes and offers me a chance to switch my plant to another fuel, with no cancer risk and a cost of $1.50. From a social perspective, this is clearly far better, as each unit of power created by coal costs society $2, $1 of direct cost and $1 of externality. However, from an individual perspective as the plant owner, I would have to charge a higher price for the delivery of the same product, electrical power, which opens me up to a competitor that could build a coal power plant next door and charge a lower price.

that is because those "capitalists" have learned that a regulatory captured market is much preferred over a free market.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by madgator

that is because those "capitalists" have learned that a regulatory captured market is much preferred over a free market.

How is Apple benefiting from a regulatory captured market? Microsoft? Google?

[madgator]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

How is Apple benefiting from a regulatory captured market? Microsoft? Google?

has the US government applied real pressure on China for currency manipulation? trade imbalances?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by madgator

has the US government applied real pressure on China for currency manipulation? trade imbalances?

The Chinese are eating our lunch and will continue to do so unless we shed their debt. Granted they need us but at the same time manipulating us.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by madgator

has the US government applied real pressure on China for currency manipulation? trade imbalances?

So you would prefer a greater amount of regulation in the international capital markets? That might be a reasonable position, but it is certainly not the free market capitalist position.

[madgator]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

So you would prefer a greater amount of regulation in the international capital markets? That might be a reasonable position, but it is certainly not the free market capitalist position.

nope....I am all for free trade


what I am against is corporate protectionism outside of copyright, trademark, patents, and other proprietary regulations.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by madgator

nope....I am all for free trade


what I am against is corporate protectionism outside of copyright, trademark, patents, and other proprietary regulations.

And again, it would be very difficult to argue that tech firms have received an exceptionally high amount of "corporate protectionism." These folks are hardcore capitalists and believers in the market. They just understand markets at an exceptionally high level, which leads to respect for the power of markets and a recognition of their limitations. It is why they perform so well as capitalists and also why they argue extensively for internalizing externalities and against the market power generated by generational wealth and connections.