Liberalism IS a mental disorder LOL
Roth really knows how liberals think. Very good insight for normal people. Now you can understand Dems.
shareYou're obscenely generalizing. Dakota Fanning's character is representative of the militant far-left who harbor anarchist & socialist views. They hate the Democratic Party, seeing them as Republican-lite. These types hated LBJ, a Democrat (remember the hate the young girl had for LBJ) and similarly hate the Tony Blair-led Labour Party in the UK and the Democratic Party as defined by Bill Clinton (1990s to present).
Liberal Democrats behave more like Ewan McGregor's character who was generally left-wing but within the confines of the quasi-capitalist system, a system the far-left wishes to destroy. You're right that these individuals are highly unlikable but they're not Democrats and to equate them with the mainstream liberals, the Democratic Party or the entirety of their voting base would be the same as equating the KKK or any militant right-wing fascist group with conservatives and Republicans, which is incorrect. In reality, the kind of far left-wing militant you see in the film are on the outskirts of any political convention, whether it be left or right.
It's *beep* idiotic how they are both anarchist and socialist/communist. Those two are polar opposites. I really hated literally every one of them and I'm quite liberal myself. They needed a slap in the face and a few years of jail.
shareSorry. Let me clarify. They're not anarchists in the sense that this is their end goal. They want a total reset of the American political, social and economic order. Believing the political system and media to be too powerful and corrupt to achieve this, they wish to create a momentary situation of anarchy in which none of the previous rules that were constricting their agenda apply.
They believe their best chance at a Marxist-inspired society is to pick up the pieces of a society plunged into political, social and economic anarchy. This is implicit in the strategy of some "liberals" and those of the Marxist persuasion in picking Trump in the 2016 election, as they think he would best push American society toward collapse rather than the Clintionian consolidation power of the Wall Street, corporate, capitalist upper-class. Basically, their tact is breaking the American capitalist egg to make a Marxist omelette.
Yanis Varoufakis, a Marxist in youth, advocates saving capitalism from itself in fear that its collapse will lead to 1930s-style European fascism and nationalism due to the weakness of socialist and centrists political parties and groups throughout the West. His tact is often criticized by devoted Marxists as being an appeasement of capitalism or an example of his false Marxism.
Lastly, you are correct that Socialism (or let's use the umbrella term Marxism) is different from anarchism. However, it was during the New Left period of the 1960s (the same time period of the film's setting) where Anarchists and Marxists had significant blends of thoughts, tactics and trends in regard to class self-liberation, which has seen a revival post-2007 fiscal crisis and again with the 2016 Presidential Election and Brexit.
Anarchists and Marxists have similar relationships like that of third wave feminism and Islam, which is hard to believe or stomach, yet is true.
Unfortunately the left did not learn from the 60s and instead was emboldened by it to carry forward.
Now we see the results where their lunacy swallowed up any thing that was not starch conservative in efforts to pad and expand their numbers. It follows the same callous line of thinking or strategy that put minority and colored groups into absolute socioeconomic chains in order to keep the vote.
I would disagree that class self-liberation is what we are now witnessing and definitely argue that the new wave of anarchist/marxist is nothing but spoiled brats born out of the recklesness of the unfettered and unchallenged left that has grown since the 60s.
Fortunately, young people are fighting back alongside the still remaining loyal Constitutional-ist elder Americans, whom had one last chance to adjust the trajectory of politics and culture before they die.
This is another facet and aspect of why this election was so important, because once those elders are gone, the oldest people in the country will be the 60s generation.
If all goes well, the new alt-right mentality, classic libertarian, constitutional republican youth, will offset that 60s generation.
Anarchists and Marxists have similar relationships like that of third wave feminism and Islam, which is hard to believe or stomach, yet is true.
The Women's March against Donald Trump was organized in part by Linda Sarsour, a leftist Muslim with positive views of Sharia Law and Saudi Arabia. So, I think you're right on this point.
Unfortunately the left did not learn from the 60s and instead was emboldened by it to carry forward.
The 40s-60s emboldened the left as they achieved their greatest successes, but they faced a backlash in the 70s/80s. The left purged the far left (who were never part of the political establishment anyway) to the fringe leading to center-left dominance since the 1990s in which moderates stole from the conservative book on welfare, crime & deregulation. They benefited short-term but were crucified for it long-term with their major figures (Clinton, Blair) being vilified by the left. In their defeat, the far left has returned from the fringes it was reduced to 3 decades ago.
I would disagree that class self-liberation is what we are now witnessing and definitely argue that the new wave of anarchist/marxist is nothing but spoiled brats born out of the recklesness of the unfettered and unchallenged left that has grown since the 60s.
I didn't say we were experiencing class self-liberation. I said the concept was revived along with other Marxist thoughts, tactics and trends.
Fortunately, young people are fighting back alongside the still remaining loyal Constitutional-ist elder Americans, whom had one last chance to adjust the trajectory of politics and culture before they die.
Quite to the contrary, younger generations align themselves with more "progressive" views (i.e.: Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn). They're educated by metropolitan liberals and came-of-age during the 2007 fiscal crisis which left capitalism tainted by greed & corruption that has compromised their futures. GOP strategist/pollster Frank Luntz admitted great concern for the future of conservatism because of this.
Furthermore, the Republican Party is not growing. It has a major demographic problem and its lost members who've become Libertarians or Independent. Since the 2004 Presidential election, the Republicans have never gotten more than 62.9 million votes. Trump did marginally better than Bush did 12 years ago. Meanwhile, since 2008 Democrats have never gotten below 65 million. Clinton did a little less than Obama did in 2012, but its still substantially higher than McCain, Romney or Trump. Since 1992, the Republican Party has won the popular vote only once. So winning this election and the Congress would only give me a sigh of relief (if I were a Republican). I wouldn't rejoice because it could go belly-up and soon. And now, anything the GOP does, they can't blame anyone else for it as they own everything. If Republican economics fail, it will be enshrined for future generations. Donald Trump is not someone who takes that responsibility seriously, especially given his expressed Keynesian inclinations on public investment.
This is another facet and aspect of why this election was so important, because once those elders are gone, the oldest people in the country will be the 60s generation.
If you mean 1960s generation as in individuals born in the 1960s, they are only relatively more conservative than millennials. They're also smaller in number & less imposing in attitude than them too. Millennials will be the first generation to not do better than their parents, and they're not going to be passive about it. Also, if you were born in 1970, you're 47. At that age, Gen X should've begun to dominate national politics. The Baby Boomers took over a little before that median age. However, the Baby Boomers still run the world and after 3 decades no less. The leaders of the US, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Japan & China are all Baby Boomers. The only major Gen Xers are Justin Trudeau (Canada) and Enrique Peña Nieto (Mexico)... both are flaming liberals.
If all goes well, the new alt-right mentality, classic libertarian, constitutional republican youth, will offset that 60s generation.
For one, alt-right, classical libertarianism and constitutional Republicanism can't co-exist in the same ideological universe. One has key aspects that contradict the others. Two, the alt-right mentality is just as delusional as the far left. Both are reactionary movements with ties to very unsavory individuals, viewpoints and political operations. Neither value facts (they tend to ignore the ones that don't paint the picture they want to paint) and have zero understanding of politics and power. However, to their credit, the far right (or alt-right) has finally hitched their ride with Trump. The far-left wishes they could've done the same with Bernie Sanders, but they failed. If there's any true benefit to the center-left or the far-left, its that Trump doesn't really care about the alt-right, GOP, conservatives, moderates, far-left or center-left. For Trump, its all about the optics of him. So as the Republican establishment is trying to do, I advise the alt-right to get what they can while they can get it. share