My views are 'left' in some ways and conservative in others. For instance, I support regulation of the financial sector, generous public education and health policies, progressive taxation and strong environmental policies. I am completely opposed to large-scale gun ownership and don't regard government agencies as being necessarily restrictive. So they're more 'left' views. On the other hand, I have conservative views on marriage and family, I believe in the value of free enterprise, unimpeded scientific research and free trade, which are usually associated with conservatism. So it's not that clear-cut.

With respect to abortion rights, for some reason, in Australia, it is not a very high-profile issue. I do believe it is a decision for women and families to make, but I don't think it's a good thing that they have to take that action, and would say the acceptance of abortion as a way to avoid the consequences of casual sexual encounters is a social ill.

There's definitely a sense of moral superiority (or, smugness) coming from the left. Like you say, a lot of leftists were thinking that only bad immoral people voted for Trump, and good people voted for Clinton. Clinton even made this explicit with her comments about "deplorables". The left even tried to extend it to sexism, as in if you don't vote for Clinton you must be a sexist, and sexists are bad people. And you wouldn't want to be a bad person now would you?

The same thing is happening with Brexit, or to anyone in Europe who doesn't think it's a good idea to have their country completely overrun by Muslim refugees (or, 'economic migrants'). Or anyone who thinks that marriage should now be extended to include same sex couples. Only a bad immoral person would have any of these opinions, and you're not a bad person, are you?

This claim to moral superiority is primarily a way for leftists to politically influence and control others. Basically it's an exploitation of people's sense of morality - their desire to be good people and do the right thing. The leftists capitalise upon this (good) trait, co-opting the narrative of what's morally right and wrong, so that it's up to the authority of the leftist to decide (and not say, individuals) moral truths. In this way the leftist doesn't need to argue for his/her political agenda, they don't have to actually convince and show people why they ought vote for x, or have xyz opinions, or xyz beliefs. Rather, all the leftist need do is present their political agenda as if it's the obvious moral choice - the self-evidently right thing to do, and shame and deride anyone who thinks otherwise. "Bigot! Racist! Sexist! Xenophobe! Transphobe!" - for the leftists, accusations and shame tactics like these substitute for political debate. Why? Because it works!

Good, moral people generally try to avoid offending others. Because being offended by someone/thing is a kind of harm for that person. Good people try to minimise their harm upon others. And when this avoidance of causing harm, is combined with the unexamined idea that something which offends another person, whatever it is and basically for whatever reason must be stopped, banned, shunned, avoided, then you end up in utterly absurd situations, such as considering anyone a bad person because they don't want babies to be ripped apart alive because their mother wants them dead.

How the left manages to control the narrative about what's right and wrong, is through this attitude/arrogance that their political beliefs are self evidently moral/correct, and the mere consideration of an alternative makes one a bad person. This is because when all the leftists do this, and they're generally pretty loud and visible about it (because unlike the political right, they're not socially ostracised or shamed for sharing their politics), people (especially young people) get the impression that everyone has these beliefs, and so if everyone thinks something is self-evidently immoral, it's a fairly large step to think independently and oppose all these people. It would be much easier to simply go with the grain and unthinkingly accept the narrative. A significant way leftists share this 'morality narrative' is through control of the mainstream media - TV news channels, newspapers, most of the internet. These all tend to have a left-leaning agenda. So when people see almost everyone acting like voting for Trump is just so self evidently morally wrong and makes one a bigoted bad person, in the newspaper, on the TV news, on the internet, and also through social media like twitter and Facebook, it really can seem as if that's the truth. Is it even worth making up your own mind and forming your own opinions, when the correct opinion is just so obvious? It also doesn't help that you can be shamed and ostracised if you do it anyway - another disincentive.

However, I think what we are seeing lately is a backlash across the western world against the leftist monopoly on moral truths. People are waking up to how their good nature is being manipulated and exploited for political gain, and (I hope) are starting to form their own political opinions which are not just what the media and their peers tell them to think. The election of Trump was (among other things) a reaction, a sort of payback or punishment, spite towards the political left. The years and years of constantly having people tell you how to think, what to believe and who to vote for by arrogant screeching leftists, it all just boiled over and a lot of people were like actually fuck you.

Of course I'm making massive generalisations here, but there is some truth to it. The monopoly on moral truth really needs to be removed from political discussions, so that the actual issues and policies can be debated. This American election cycle was basically the left/democrats calling anyone who thinks or votes differently an immoral bigot, mostly that's the political right, and the right saying "no, we're not", and having to defend themselves. Or worse, having to hide themselves, literally keep their political beliefs and opinions a secret for fear of being shamed or ostracised, as if living under a dictatorship. So many people hid their political opinions that accurate polls literally could not be conducted. The election result was an upset because of it.

If only we could set aside our moral judgments of others, keep our insults to ourselves and just sit down together to discuss the actual policies and issues. All this "you're a bad person you're a racist bigot" and "no I'm not you're just a mentally ill leftist" gets us nowhere and in fact leads us to a point where a man like Trump seems a viable option as president. I mean the guy is a clown. But when the alternative is to vote for a corrupt pathological liar in order to not get shamed as a bigot, he starts to seem appealing.

Oh well, we're stuck with him now. I'm hopeful he makes a good president and delivers on at least some of his promises.

Though I agree with most of the left's values, I also agree with most of what you've said. Leftists need to find a new way of talking about things to people outside their bubble and they need to do it fast.

(There was some salon or slate article about how it's insensitive to discuss the reasons for Hillary's loss beyond sexism at least until female hillary supporters have time to grieve...that's insane but I've seen people in my fb circle say similar things)

My 2 cents.

I think the 'left', 'right' metric lacks the dimensionality that we find in today's world. The right has nowhere to go, it's fundamentality, reactionary quality, can't move it towards center and the left's progressive stance (its determinism) can't understand it own inability to move people. The center is vacant, a desert with no life of its own. Both ends on this horizontal plane are pushing away from the other. The general will is nowhere to be found.

What’s politics? Nobody knows it anymore. Does it still make sense to talk of Right, and Left and centre? Maybe it makes more sense to talk of above and below. […] In politics we don’t need a leader, we are grown up people. We need a vision of the world […].

Beppe Grillo 2005

I am not sure I totally agree with Grillo, but he hints at a another dimension more vertical than horizontal, one that pits order versus chaos, tribalism versus anarchism, above versus below. The part I disagree with is that we don't need a leader. I think we need a leader with some sort of encompassing vision.

I doubt Trump is that leader, but in thinking about what he symbolizes in kinda of a bizzaro way reminds me of what he is in real life, i.e, the CEO of a large (and apparently) largely successful business. Corporations are growing to the point where some corporations cash flow exceed many nation states. Perhaps order in this postmodern period means corporate governance. Where states are managed like successful corporations. Capitalism eats democracy.

A spanish fisherman a long time ago was asked what he thought about politics, he said something along the lines, 'let Franco worry about the state, I fish'

I think we need a leader with some sort of encompassing vision. — Cavacava

Seems to me you've just lost one. As for Trump's 'successful businesses', five of his businesses went bust, and he has been sued in over 1500 lawsuits by people he didn't pay. Of course all that will be forgotten now.

This American election cycle was basically the left/democrats calling anyone who thinks or votes differently an immoral bigot, mostly that's the political right, and the right saying "no, we're not", and having to defend themselves. — Dukkha

That's not what I saw. The Democrat selection was a model of decorum as far as I could see. They debated policies - tax, education, and public expenditure. It was an argument about politics and principle, I couldn't see a lot of name-calling or stigmatisation from them. Trump, on the other hand, continually engaged in insults, denigration of his opponent - threatening jail - made numerous deliberately inflammatory and insulting statements and generally acted appallingly (which will all be forgotten very quickly). But then Trump is not really a Republican, it was more that the conservatives were more vulnerable to takeover by a hostile force (which is what happened) because of the dumbing-down process that the Tea Party started. Now that he's won, of course, he will have quite a lot of ability to re-define Republicanism, which, if I were a US Republican, I would be extremely worried about.

Seems to me you've just lost one. As for Trump's 'successful businesses', five of his businesses went bust, and he has been sued in over 1500 lawsuits by people he didn't pay. Of course all that will be forgotten now.

Yes, as I said I doubt it is Trump, perhaps you missed that, in any case given that this information was known prior to his election, it only strengthens my suspicion that what he symbolizes was more important to the people who voted for him.

I've also been drifting towards more conservative positions over the past couple years, at least on social issues. I still don't identify at all with the global free-market + decreased spending on social programs + militant nationalism-type conservatism of the Republican 'establishment', but I've also become increasingly alienated from the very divisive identity politics and smug sense of superiority coming from the Left.

Now I may be delusional, but I truly feel that a new 'party' of sorts combining progressive economic principles (drawn from the Left) with some socially conservative positions (drawn from the Right) may resonate with more and more people moving forward. I see these as compatible and am a bit surprised there's no representation for this voice. It would eschew the racism and nationalism associated with more egregious elements of the Right, but also the secularism and multiculturalism of the Left. It would advocate at the grass roots level a pro-environmental and anti-consumerist perspective, a reassessment of the aims and ends of education, and, broadly speaking, would attempt to infuse the material with 'spiritual' significance without necessarily being 'religious'.

This is obviously in embryonic form and poorly formulated, but I'm interested in gathering perspectives from people of all political persuasions to see if some amalgamation is possible and appealing. Here at TPF we have a number of posters (Thorongil, TGW, Agustino, Wayfarer, et al) who, I think, fall somewhere in this category representing a new type of conservatism. Or maybe it's an old type - going back to early Romantic reactions against the perceived excesses of the Enlightenment - which is slowly gaining more credibility as global kleptocracy and authoritarian populism are viewed as equally horrible alternatives in a world of advanced technological capitalism.

I view this as a 'spiritual' crisis, and nothing less than a significant transformation in the way we understand ourselves and our world will suffice to take on the challenge. As Nietzsche noted, man is a bridge...

And I must say that as much as I can't stand Donald Trump, the reaction of the Left to his presidential victory has been a real eye opener for me. The ostensible party of compassion and tolerance and social justice has shown itself to be incredibly intolerant and hateful, and just as prone to engage in the type of stereotyping and essentializing rhetoric that they have so vehemently (and rightly in most cases IMO) protested when directed at people of color, Muslims, etc.

From what I've seen they are also just as likely to distort facts in the service of their agenda as any rightwing party has ever been. Add to that their snobbish elitism, their turning their backs on the working class in favor of self-serving connections with global finance, and their attempt to portray everyone who voted for Trump as ipso facto a racist, sexist and xenophobic moron, and you have a party that I can no longer stand by. Dukkha outlined this position well, and I don't think he exaggerated the tenacity of the hatred many on the Left feel for anyone who challenges their Manichean worldview.

Again, I can't emphasize enough how pointing this out doesn't necessarily mean one is a Republican partisan or an enthusiastic Trump supporter. An unintended consequence of their crusade against the perceived injustices of white males is that it has turned some of us (or more than some) who would otherwise be inclined to sympathize with quite a few of their positions (on economics, the environment, social programs and the like) against them - and many people who didn't previously give a shit about their 'race' - and who have never picked their friends, their spouse, their employees etc. based upon such narrow-minded tribal loyalties - have come to see that they are hated precisely because of it.

And no, I don't think pointing this out makes one a racist; I will acknowledge the many injustices non-whites and all 'others' (non-white male heterosexuals) have been the victims of in the US and abroad, and the genuine need to rectify these legitimate grievances to the best of our abilities, but I will also disagree with them on how best to transcend racial categories in favor of a more inclusive identity-- assuming of course that that's their goal, which I'm beginning to think isn't the case. Seems many would like to invert the old racial hierarchy instead of superseding it altogether.

Apologies for the rant. A bit cathartic for someone who's tried to take an independent view of the current political situation beyond party lines over the past couple weeks and who, for this, has been attacked and vilified for simply trying to facilitate constructive dialogue. That's precisely not what either side of rigid ideologues wants. I tried not to get sucked into the hate and hostility, but was unfortunately unsuccessful. So the gloves came off and both sides can go fuck themselves.

Ideologues on the left typically circumvent the inconvenient truth of an opponent's words by smugly diagnosing it as a function of an assumed ignorance, personality, or socio-economic interest. For example, people who voted for Trump are simply diagnosed as ignorant or uneducated, regardless of the inconvenient truths which can explain their support for Trump. Ideologues on the right don't usually bother about explaining away the truth of their opponent's words, they simply ignore the facts, such as in the case of denying research on climate change.

I don't know which is worse, the pseudo-intellectual anti-intellectualism of the left, or the blatant anti-intellectualism of the right. They both sabotage the means for resolving disagreements by their disrespect for truth. Instead there is violence.

Well, of course you're drifting right. You're growing old. Change is painful (the music these kids listen to these days, jeez), and to stave off your impending mortality, you try to grab and hang onto as much stuff as you can. This inevitably results in politically conservative jerking of the knees. You suddenly realize that soon you will cease to be, so until then its, "Me, me, me!"

As an aside : For most in the US, the recent election had nothing to do with their political leanings. True, the hard right was never going to vote for a Democrat, but most folks just reacted without using their heads. I think that for most, Trump was a political cypher, and they projected onto him whatever they needed to believe. Unfortunately, that required ignoring the mountain of evidence that he is grossly unfit to lead a local PTA, let alone a country with nuclear weapons. How can anyone choose that evil oompah-loompah over a sober adult is beyond me. He is simply a spoiled-brat 15-year-old.

Who now controls the most powerful military on Earth.

Unfortunately, that required ignoring the mountain of evidence that he is grossly unfit to lead a local PTA, let alone a country with nuclear weapons. How can anyone choose that evil oompah-loompah over a sober adult is beyond me. He is simply a spoiled-brat 15-year-old. — Real Gone Cat

This is precisely the sort of name-calling nonsense that causes people to look more closely at Trump, then vote for him.

Well, it's not just you moving right. Some sobering facts for Democrats: 67 of 98 state legislative chambers are Republican (most in history), 30 states have both Republican Houses and Senates (most since 1978), 23 states have Republican Senates, Houses, and governors, 30 states have Republican governors. http://rslc.gop/blog/2016/10/04/republicans-have-gained-stength-in-state-legislatures-and-governorships/.

On the federal level: both the House and Senate are Republican as is the president. The Supreme Court is conservative and will likely now stay that way for decades.

And it gets worse. According to a news report I heard, 1/3 of the Democratic representation in Congress comes from 3 states: CA, NY, and MA. That is, the Dems are suffering from what they attacked the Reps of for many years: regionalism. The Republicans are in fact not just a bunch of backwood southerners in the land that time forgot. Its the Dems who now find themselves in smaller tighter groups where they can lecture from their podiums onto the masses.

True, the hard right was never going to vote for a Democrat, but most folks just reacted without using their heads — Real Gone Cat

Well, it's not just you moving right. — Hanover

Most? Like pretty much every commentator on the Election you seem to have conveniently forgotten that Clinton received nearly 2 million votes more than Trump and that Trump's triumph has almost nothing to do with a significant shift in popular feelings only the bizarre electoral system that turns a 1.3% lead in the polls into a 13.8% deficit in the final result combined with the lowest turnout for decades. Only Quincy Adams has reached the White House with less popular support than Trump. The narrative of an overwhelming victory for Republican thinking simply doesn't make sense. The truth is that a worryingly large proportion of the people of the United States has effectively been disenfranchised by a Republican coup that, far from making the nation 'great again', leaves it more divided than ever.

ike pretty much every commentator on the Election you seem to have conveniently forgotten that Clinton received nearly 2 million votes more than Trump and that Trump's triumph has almost nothing to do with a significant shift in popular feelings only the bizarre electoral system that turns a 1.3% lead in the polls into a 13.8% deficit in the final result combined with the lowest turnout for decades. — Barry Etheridge

Yeah, but a lot those votes come from states like California and New York, which were going heavily Democratic no matter what.

Clinton lost in states she should not have lost, like Michigan. Voters who voted for Obama in Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, etc. switched to Trump, voted third party, or didn't bother voting. That's the problem.

The Democrats had a popular candidate in Bernie, but they wanted to go with an insider who represents the establishment. I think Hillary would have been a good president, but she didn't inspire anyone like Bernie or Trump. What was the message to the Bernie supports and moderates? Vote for the lesser evil. Hearing that every single election is fatiguing. It's hardly inspiring. Hillary didn't represent change. Bernie did. Voters in states that mattered wanted something different. Plenty of the swing votes would have gone to Bernie if he had been the candidate.

As for the electoral college, I'd be all for reforming it, if the states could agree to do a percentage instead of winner take all. There's plenty of people in California or New York or Texas or any state that always goes one way who would like to see some of their electoral votes go for the candidate they voted for.

I'd be all for breaking up the two party system, and having a ranked choice voting system. Just getting rid of the electoral college isn't going to solve everything (which is bloody unlikely to happen since it takes an amendment, and those red states aren't likely wanting to see the big cities dominate the election).

It is pretty amazing that whoever won was going to have like 25.x% of the eligible votes. Maybe if you can't get at least one third of the eligible votes, the current president just stays in for another term.

Clinton's popular vote lead was 1.5m, but note that her California lead was 3m. Remove Ca from the nation, and the election isn't close from any perspective, thus my comments about it becoming a regional party. You also have to accept that Trump didn't campaign in CA because it couldn't be won by him. Had the election been decided by popular vote, you'd have expected Trump to have chased and gotten some of those votes he conceded.

In over ten years of my asking if anyone knows the simple distinction between a lynch mob and a democracy I have yet to hear the correct answer and over half the people I've spoken to online have admitted that they are suspicious of the dictionary despite being unaware that it merely contains common definitions listed in the order of their popularity. Its Three Stooges slapstick of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and reflects the mindless mob mentality where everyone chooses between the lesser of many evils and argues over the definition of stupid and who is the better example.

But, please, don't let me deter you from joining the mindless mob arguing such distinctions.

Greatest. Post. I've. Ever. Read. On. These. Forums! Couldn't agree more. Thanks for your input! :D

I've been on the Left when very young. Unfortunately the kind of people I found over there were so shallow, and so hypocritical that I couldn't stand a single second around them. I feel like I've lost my sympathy for many real problems - such as the suffering of illegal immigrants who are granted no protection by law and are in many cases abused - simply because these folks on the Left abuse these categories of people for their own political (and economic, for slave labor) benefits. And then the way they go out solving problems - getting naked for Clinton, violently protesting in the streets, being rude etc. disgusts me to no end (not to mention that they don't work). I don't see this as being worthy of the dignity of mankind.

I've also lost my sympathy for many women's issues simply because of the behaviour of those women on the Left, which is nothing short of despicable. I shouldn't have to tolerate the arrogance, impiety, and total disregard for everything that has to do with community and life from someone like Amy Schumer. It's a shame that such a person ever gets to become wealthy from talking about vagina and how cool it is to kill babies all day. I mean can any man - and I'm referring to those men who are still men and have some dignity left - can any man ever accept to marry Amy Schumer? I mean I wouldn't marry her even if you were to kill me if I refused. And what has she done for the world? She has made women into male abusers, and men into pussy-worshipers. Or to listen to her and to many young girls finding it "cool" that Amy doesn't give a fuck about her boyfriend and purposefully does things he doesn't like and feels that's fine. She should be ashamed of herself. I really hope one day she will get punished for it. It's people like this that make many of us on the right have no sympathy for their cause, but moreover hate it with a hatred that would rather see the world burn than in their hands.

I've lost my sympathy for many of the struggles of colored folks, also because of the behaviour of those on the Left, who merely seek to replace the hirearchy instead of eliminate it. For example there is a police shooting of a black person who was killed even though he had done nothing wrong. I find it hard to sympathise when I see that a white male loses against a black female for a university position not because he is less capable, but because she is black and female, and he is white and male. That is again shameful and outrageous. I fear that if this continues the white folks will sooner or later get sick of it, and then it will not be nice at all for any of us. This is certainly not the way to promote brotherhood amongst different races. I have many friends of color - our skin color has always been irrelevant, no one even mentions it. That's the way it should be.

Instead we get all sorts of losers - actors, the media and Hollywood - who are the primary engine of the Left - who promote this racial hatred. They blame it all on the white man. The white man is the devil. And they always remind the black man how he must hate the white man, and they always remind him how he has suffered and been unjustly treated. Which is true. But always keeping in mind the past, and being attached to it, will in no way make the present any different. That's what the Left doesn't get. They are building a tremendous amount of hatred in the Right. And when this hatred will be unleashed we will all suffer a lot more than they've ever imagined. They will never get their sick world, where whites are ostracised, where men would do anything for pussy, where women will never be held accountable for their actions/behaviour, where we have no borders and let illegals come in the country to abuse them for their labor.

I've lost my sympathy for many of the young people. Young people used to have big dreams - Alexander dreamed to conquer the world, Aquinas dreamed to become a great scholar, and so forth. The young of today dream to do nothing, travel the world, get drunk, and have sex. How can anyone have any sympathy for such worms? Is that worthy of the life and dignity of a man? The young of today have a very short memory - they don't remember anything, they don't take any positions, they don't have any aspirations - except for those "aspirations" that Hollywood and the Media Crooks give them. I could swear that you can punch one in the face, and the next day, they'll be your friends.

It's sad, but true. The outrageous actions on the Left have built and will continue to build a tremendous amount of hatred. It's true that one shouldn't feel vengeful, shouldn't feel hatred. But there comes a point when their actions become so outrageous and so petty that one would rather see the world burn than handed over to these fools. Hence the hatred that seems to be coming from many of us on the Right. I will finish with this quote from Kierkegaard which describes my feelings best:

“Let others complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men's thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful. For a worm it might be regarded as a sin to harbor such thoughts, but not for a being made in the image of God. Their lusts are dull and sluggish, their passions sleepy...This is the reason my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and to Shakespeare. I feel that those who speak there are at least human beings: they hate, they love, they murder their enemies, and curse their descendants throughout all generations, they sin.”

LOL

Just taking a page from the Donald's own playbook. Didn't know you Trumpies were so sensitive to name-calling.

So in a single comment, you take the left to task for accusing the right of anti-intellectualism, then point out the right's "blatant" anti-intellectualism! Hilarious.

So your claim is that the right exhibits "blatant" anti-intellectualism. Are you a leftie?

I find discussions like this generally quite bizarre. They are quickly high-jacked by righties who spout all the accepted Sean Hannity nonsense.

I'm old, but still politically left. Let me assure you that there is no political left in the US (I know because I have waited for one to show up my entire life). There has never been a viable political left in the US. The reality is that the US has a far-right party and a center-right party. Calling Dems "lefties" is a Fox News meme. Nice of you all to drink the Kool-Aid. (And notice, I am not calling anyone dumb. Just gullible.)

Anyway - thoughts? — shmik

I find it odd how so often I see people describing how they're disillusioned by their current or former political in-group, as if they suddenly see the motivations and shortcomings of other people on their side more clearly and realize that they're on average not that much smarter or nicer than anyone else. Or rather, I don't find it odd that people do come to those sort of realizations, but rather the fact that it often seems to be a bit of a shock to them because they so strongly identified with that group. Doesn't that just mean that they primarily identified with the people, and that the actual issues and arguments behind them were secondary?

You say that you had had discussions about abortions for years. What did those discussions entail if no one ever brought up considerations regarding the fetus? To me it seems like anywhere one goes to participate in discussion about a controversial topic like that, there's always someone who brings up the so-called pro-life side of the argument. Or did none of them simply ever manage to express themselves in a way which would have allowed you to really put yourself in their position and "get" what they're going on about?

I guess where I'm going with this might be that it's certainly healthy to notice that most people even on your own side on most issues aren't in for it because they've really rationally thought things through, but often more for simple tribalism and other less-rational reasons. However, I'd say it's equally important to use that realization not to just swing to the other tribe and think they're much better (not that it sounds like you were doing that, but still), but to stop strongly identifying with any particular group altogether, and to identify with the actual issues and arguments instead.

I began on the left, I'm 67 years old and I'm still on the left, though it's a Green ecological vista nowadays rather than the old anarcho-syndicalist fellow I used to meet in the mirror. I don't know why people talk about some sort of inevitability about moving right as you get older, I just don't feel it, nor do I feel my fundamental values have shifted in 50 years. Perhaps it's that my main imaginary adversary has always been Self-serving Authority, not conservatism. Diatribes against The Other Side in a debate leave me cold: in the ordinary business of making civil society happen I work, sing, discuss, set out chairs and make posters and laugh and write and just do stuff with people all across the political spectrum. Caroline Lucas in the UK and Jill Stein in the USA are my sort of leader. We may be in a minority, but we know we're making sense.

Is anyone going to start a "dead pool" for the "right"? I remember there were quite a few websites tracking all the Silicon Valley startups as they were doing layoffs and collapsing during the big "dot-com bust". It is inevitable that the "right" is already nearly dead. First, it won't be long before they realize what they did, (like the left did back in the day), isn't going to work out for them. Even 2 months before Trump takes office, "drain the swamp", has become, "more snakes and alligators won't hurt". Second, they ran on a platform on fear and distrust of the government. How long can they stay away from their addiction, before they find reasons to fear and distrust the new government? When the jobs all leave and they find themselves paying even more in taxes for even more ridiculous gold brick projects without any benefit? Can they handle the pressure of actual responsibility for their actions, or will they just blame others and rethink their party alignments, (see above)?

There was no real "left", but more of a shared sentiment that we couldn't justify our rights and benefits unless they applied to everyone. There could be no "moral high ground", since morality was all relative to individual "world views". The country has always been skewed to the right. Even the abortion issue mentioned above is a bit backwards. To be consistent, the right should have been pro-choice/personal responsibility, and the left should have been pro-life. It seems like people chose sides just to oppose the other side. The "left", (of far-right), is paying for its sins too. Nobody is really switching sides, they are just bringing some issues of cognitive dissonance into focus. How could you be trying to save a group while simultaneously killing them? I recently came to the conclusion that the current protests and discussions are not so much about political ideals, but about how to reconcile ideals with reality.

As for me, it is too late for left/right discussion. My main concern is how to dress for the inevitable relocation camps.

(There was some salon or slate article about how it's insensitive to discuss the reasons for Hillary's loss beyond sexism at least until female hillary supporters have time to grieve...that's insane but I've seen people in my fb circle say similar things) — csalisbury

Yes it's insane, that's why I've been rubbing it in their faces every single chance I've been getting. Let them call me a sexist, a mysoginist, I don't give a fuck. Losers, as far as I'm concerned. If they're going to cry like babies, and "grieve" for Crooked Hillary's loss >:O - that's funny as hell! They should remember that Crooked has millions stashed away and is living like an Empress on their backs.

Change is painful (the music these kids listen to these days, jeez), and to stave off your impending mortality, you try to grab and hang onto as much stuff as you can. This inevitably results in politically conservative jerking of the knees. You suddenly realize that soon you will cease to be, so until then its, "Me, me, me!" — Real Gone Cat

Oh so who was up and running with the sexual revolution, etc.? The Right? No that's the Left. The "me me me" - that's always been the left.

How can anyone choose that evil oompah-loompah over a sober adult is beyond me — Real Gone Cat

Oh yeah, Crooked Hillary is a "sober adult" - give me a break, that's a shame of a person. Worse than Trump - at least Trump has a certain honor about him, he will not lick up to folks to get what he wants. Crooked Hillary immediately licks up to the special interests who give her money. She should really be ashamed of herself - the person who wants to be President goes licking bankers, and hedge fund managers, and other rich folks >:O Sooner or later we'll hear about the Clinton-Soros sex scandal I'm sure >:O

You're a very unpleasant person.

They should say that to Crooked Hillary who is living like a millionaire off their backs! ;)

yeah

Just taking a page from the Donald's own playbook. Didn't know you Trumpies were so sensitive to name-calling. — Real Gone Cat

And due to the endless name-calling, people stop caring what you say.

Some pertinent advice for the left, from the left.