The Radical Right

Posted by

I caught roughly 45 minutes of the debate between Senator Kelly Loeffler and Reverend Raphael Warnock last night. They’re both set to compete in the Georgia Senate runoff election on January 5, 2021. Democrat Jon Ossoff and Republican Senator David Perdue are vying for the other Georgia Senate seat. The two were supposed to face off in a debate on Saturday evening, but the coward Perdue was a no-show. Instead, Ossoff debated an empty podium.

We all know how vital this runoff is, with control of the Senate hanging in the balance. The moderators at the Loeffler/Warnock debate tried their best to get answers. I thought Warnock came across as genuine, decent, and thoughtful. Considering the attacks that came his way, it says a lot about the man.

I’m going to take some liberties here, for purposes of this post, and give you an idea of what most of Loeffler’s responses were. Whether asked if the current president was wrong to call the Governor of Georgia to try and have him throw out the election results or whether Senators should be trading stocks, it didn’t matter. She repeated the following refrain, over and over:

“The radical liberal Raphael Warnock,” “Beware of Socialism,” “I’ve lived the American dream,” and “I work day and night for the people of Georgia.” That’s it, folks. She’s not much more than an empty pantsuit. But she had her talking points and got them out there, I suppose.

It’s the first talking point, though, that struck a nerve with me – radical liberal. What the hell does that even mean? We’ve heard the current president and many on the other side using that phraseology all the time. There’s nothing radical about Raphael Warnock, and to say otherwise is ridiculous. But to the uneducated or low-information voter out there, all you have to do is repeat it, and it sticks. They wouldn’t do it if they didn’t think it worked. There was one radical on that stage, and it wasn’t Warnock.

That said, am I a radical liberal because I believe every single American citizen has a right to health care? Because I believe climate change is an existential threat to our very existence on this earth? Because I think a woman has a right to choose what she does with her body? Because I believe we need to have comprehensive immigration reform? Because I wear a mask to protect me and others from the possibility of being infected from Covid-19? Because I believe we need to increase our minimum wage to $15 an hour? Because I think we should have free or dramatically reduced tuition for college? Because I believe we need common-sense gun safety regulations?

Ok, then call me a radical liberal – guilty as charged. The truth is, these ideas aren’t crazy. I’d go as far as to say that they’re mainstream in that most Americans agree with these concepts, at least to some degree. Frankly, if you want to call any group radical, it’s the current Republican Party – or, if you’d like, the Trump Party, because that’s what they’ve become.

These are the folks who are radical, and it’s time to start branding them that way. Yes, let’s start calling them the radical right from now on because: they do NOT believe health care is a right; they do NOT believe a woman has the right to choose; they do NOT believe in comprehensive immigration reform; most of them think Covid is a hoax or not that big a deal; they do NOT believe in a minimum wage; they do NOT believe in climate change, and they certainly do NOT want any gun safety reform.

Let’s also not forget that the majority of elected Congressional Republicans do not think that Joe Biden won the election and do not dare to say so if they do. That’s radical. Biden won – period. Is it also not radical that most of them refuse to condemn the current president for his pathetic and dangerous assault on our electoral system?

The other day, the House passed the MORE Act. This bill aims to decriminalize cannabis, remove it from Schedule 1 status, and pave the way for social reforms and economic opportunity. 97% of Democrats voted for it – 97% of Republicans voted against it. Well over 50% of Americans now believe cannabis should be legal and regulated. We know the bill is going to die in the Senate because radical Mitch McConnell will kill it. Again, who’s radical?

Finally, they do NOT want you to vote. Oh, they want some to vote — not anyone who might vote for a Democrat, though. Whether through gerrymandering, reducing voting locations, or throwing people off the voter rolls, they’ll do whatever it takes to keep their tenuous grip on power. They wouldn’t do any of these things if they thought they could win over the American people with their policies and ideas. Guess what? They can’t because they’re out of the mainstream and stuck in 1955. I’d call that radical, wouldn’t you?

Mitch McConnell, aka Moscow Mitch and The Grim Reaper, remains the number one obstacle for getting things done for the American people. It’s time to start labeling him Radical Mitch and the rest of his party the radical right. Right now, some in the media want to blame Nancy Pelosi for failure to pass any Covid relief. Bullshit. She passed Covid relief months ago, revised it down, and passed it again, only to have it sit on Radical Mitch’s desk – just like the hundreds of other bills he’s never even brought up for debate.

So let’s put an end to this ridiculous branding to those of us on the left who want to do what’s right and start helping the American people. We can disagree on specifics, but make no mistake, there’s one side standing in the way of meaningful progress – and it’s not the so-called radical left.

It’s the radical right who’s responsible for the gridlock. Never forget that. Say it whenever you talk politics to anyone. Write it on social media or whatever platform you can access. It’s way past time that we start to brand these people for who they are.

58 comments

    1. True Jerry. If all you’re doing is watching Fox, OANN, Newsmax, and Facebook propaganda, you have absolutely no idea what’s really going on. Research takes effort. So many of these people just do not want to know the truth.

      Like

  1. I am so tired of hearing about Radical Liberals and Socialists from these know-nothings. Have them read the GOP Platform when they nominated Ike. That platform is further to the Left than today’s average politician of either side. Today Eisenhower would be branded as some sort of a Radical Liberal.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. He sure would be branded radical Dan. That’s how far to the right they’ve gone. As they say, the genie is out of the bottle. They will never moderate their views. Not in the near future anyway.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Right? Amazing that his narrative ever took hold. Social media, I believe, is the culprit-at least one of the main ones. That, and all of the misinformation from other right-wing sources.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Reblogged this on Filosofa's Word and commented:
    My political ideology was once considered ‘moderate’. My thoughts, ideas and beliefs haven’t changed in the least, but now I’m labelled a ‘Socialist’ or ‘radical leftist’. The further to the right the conservative movement goes, the further to the left common sense seems to be. What we need is some middle ground, a place for compromise, but it’s long since gone. Our friend Jeff puts all of this into context and shares his thoughts after watching part of the debate between two of the candidates in the Georgia runoff elections on January 5th. Good thoughts, Jeff … thanks!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you Jill! Yep, we’re a couple of socialist/commie/pinko/radicals. Oh well. Let them continue to drift further and further into oblivion. The only way they keep power is by cheating. You and I must continue to call their crooked asses out at every turn.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Heh heh … they can call me all those names and more, but the very next person who calls me a ‘libtard’ is going to feel the wrath of my solid wooden rolling pin upside their head! Oh yes, my friend … you and I are going to keep calling their asses out and won’t stop until we stop breathing!

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Yes, my one Trump loving friend used to use that offensive word all of the time when were texting over the summer. Needless to say, I stooped down to his level and came up with a few of my own to describe him and his clueless Trump cult club. Hated to do it. But boy did it feel invigorating!!!

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Jeff, until the Trump Party ceases using the currency of ludicrous conspiracy theories, their opinion must be severely discounted. I left the Republican Party about twelve plus years ago. A key reason was the GOP’s tendency to make things up, leveraged by Fox News and others. It has only gotten worse with Trump. I have postulated that Trump switched from being a Democrat to being a Republican as he saw it was easier for his BS to be believed with go-along opinion hosts. Please note, both parties are untruthful at times, but it is not a bell curve, with a heavy weighting to the right. Keith

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yep, so true Keith. It’s like Michael Cohen’s take on Trump meeting with evangelicals and saying to him, “can you believe this bullshit?” after they left the room. Of course he knows his base is gullible as hell. If he’s good at anything, it’s recognizing people’s stupidity, and capitalizing on it through the big con. That’s his main achievement. Pretty dubious don’t you think?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Jeff, true. Michael Cohen’s story is consistent with Howard Stern’s comments after he interviewed Trump for fifteen hours. He noted his does give a darn about his base (or anyone for that matter). Keith

        Liked by 1 person

  4. If you’re asking if I believe there should be one, absolutely. It’s inherited wealth, so I firmly believe it should be taxed accordingly. Now, as for the amount, that’s debatable. Many R’s want to eliminate the tax altogether. Some Dems want to lower the threshold. That’s a debate worth having. Right now, the exemption on the tax for single filers is $11 million-$22 million for couples. It’s set up to be that way until 2025. Not sure what it reverts to after that. But it was part of the Republican tax scam of 2018 so I know they raised that exemption substantially. It needs to go back down, in my view.

    Like

  5. Here is an idea I would like to put forward: Keep the estate tax intact but use the revenue for infrastructure and Medicare For All, as well as things that truly benefit society. What is truly absurd is that the people who whine that people receiving inherited wealth would be getting free stuff also want free stuff for themselves. Something I would exclude from the estate tax is a family business. Why should a family not be able to keep the business going indefinitely?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Can’t say I disagree with your idea. I’d have to look into it further, though. Our tax code is so complicated with so many loopholes, write offs etc…it’s really hard to figure out what we can do.

      Like

      1. Don’t get me wrong. I am opposed to the estate tax on philosophical grounds. Having said that, I would not have any problems with the revenue going to pay for infrastructure or Medicare For All, as well as things that truly benefit society. As I said, one thing that I would exclude from being subjected to the estate tax would be a family business.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. I like your infrastructure idea, and how about free or reduced costs for public colleges and/or trade school-2 year certificates etc..?

    Like

  7. To follow-up on my last comment, here is what I mean: Armed Forces members have risked literal life and limb to defend our country, even if there is loss of neither. I would rather pay for them to get a free education than people who use their status as welfare recipients to act like they are deserving of free stuff on-demand. On the matter of free college, I would prefer to hear arguments for it from economists than I would from people who insist that it be free because they can’t afford the price tag. Regarding education being a right, nothing in our Founding Documents says anything about it one way or another.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. IMO, you make some really good points.

      Overall, it’s my considered opinion that as a rule, politicians don’t have a clue on how to use common sense. Nearly all their actions/decisions revolve around getting votes/staying in office/making money.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I do agree that “demanding” something never works. However, specifically in the area of education, I don’t feel this country encourages it near enough. One solution might be that financial assistance could be offered as an incentive. That way those who truly want it would/could be rewarded.

        Like

      2. Nan, here is an idea I would like to get your thoughts on: Lowering the cost significantly, however, making up the difference with a financial transactions tax. Here is how my idea would work: There would be the personal out-of-pocket expenditures for books, housing, which only applies to people who live on campus and meals. However, the rest of the funding for maintenance of the facilities would be funded by taxing stock or other forms of financial transactions.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. I hate to admit it, but now you’re getting into financial topics that are a bit above my pay grade. Mostly I have some very general ideas on how I think things might/could work better, but generally speaking, it’s not something I spend time thinking about.

        I will say this … if there are ways to help finance not only education, but other services that benefit the whole of the people (not just a few — which often tends to be the case), then I would probably support it.

        Just as a sidenote: I’m FAR from wealthy, but I would be willing to pay more to help more. This, IMO, is one of the big differences between the two political parties. One seems to want to expand their own financial portfolio at the expense of others, whereas the other one is willing to spread the wealth around to benefit everyone.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Spot on Nan. I’d be willing to pay more as well. It’s about all of us. Not just a few, as you said. Why is this so hard for the other political party to grasp?

        Like

      5. I think that’s a great idea on the financial transaction tax. Bernie Sanders has talked about that for years.

        Like

    2. Whether things in this country are a right or privilege is always a point of contention. I do believe we can find many economists who say that those who complete either a 2 or 4 year degree in something, hell-anything, make far more money in their lives than do those who only finish high school. Would that not, long-term, pay dividends for this country? People make a better living, pay taxes, be able to buy homes etc…
      Maybe we start out with providing 2 year free community/trade school funding and see how it goes. Then, perhaps we can expand it to 4 year public universities as well, for those who would qualify, that is. I do think we’d have to cut off that aid in some manner for people making over a certain amount. There are lots of things we can do in this country to help make lives better-not free handouts as you suggest. Just give folks a chance. A leg up, if you will. Bottom line for me: it’s time to concentrate on the other 99% in this country. The 1% are doing quite nicely, thank you very much. In a $20 trillion economy, surely we can do better. No?

      Liked by 1 person

  8. That’s for people way smarter than me to decide. But what I would say is that some people will game the system no matter what. Whether it’s the 1% or someone at the lower scale. What we should determine when government tries to help people is whether it betters society as a whole. In 1965-66 LBJ passed Medicare. It pulled millions of seniors out of poverty and still keeps them out today in so many circumstances. It’s about tradeoffs my friend. 50 plus years later, I’d say creating Medicare far outweighed not doing something about it. In my view, we need to do so much more.

    Like

  9. Brookingslib, Keith, Nan, Jill Dennison, Don Ostertag and Brendan Birth, on the matter of free college, I am inclined to believe that economists would be better prepared with arguments for free college, assuming that they make any, than people who want free college on the basis that they cannot afford the tuition costs. If the only arguments for free college from its advocates are “we breathe, therefore we deserve free stuff” or “we deserve free college because we cannot afford the tuition costs,” those would be a bad arguments.

    Like

    1. If you would read again, ragnarsbhut, I suggested incentive payments. Not simply handouts.

      BTW, where do you get this attitude that the less fortunate are simply looking for “handouts”? Sounds like Republican propaganda to me.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. My friend, I watched parts of the two videos you provided for Nan. Really? That’s the best you can do? Cavuto has a young twenty-something on-the organizer for the march- and did you really expect her to have the answers you’re looking for? There are a gazillion economists he could have on there to have an intelligent discussion. People who know tax policy, statistics, what it would mean, benefit of society vs. the cost etc…How about he debates Robert Reich, Richard Wolff, Dean Baker, Paul Krugman or Joe Stiglitz to name a few? These are left leaning economists who would surely do a better job of explaining this topic. And John Stossel? I’m not even going to get into him. I’ve seen that piece he did. Talk about making generalizations. Interviewing somebody who’s begging, with signs, and throwing everyone in the same boat is simply wrong. It’s what Fox News and other right-wing media do the best: Scapegoating and gas-lighting.

      Like

      1. No, I mean fair and balanced where each side is heard. Example: David Pakman, a Left-leaning guy and someone like Mark Levin, a Constitutional Conservative, people on polar opposites of the political spectrum, however, both sides present their arguments on things.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Brookingslib, in my comment on March 29 a 8:56 am I said, “Brookingslib, you left the awaiting moderation comment still awaiting moderation.” I meant to put another o, not an r. Can you correct that error and then delete this comment? I don’t require a response.

      Like

  10. Brookingslib, on the estate tax vs. free college issue, here are my general thoughts: If people want free college they can have it. However, that should be equally true of people who inherit wealth/estates being able to keep them. Even though it is technically free stuff either way, I would argue that it is hypocritical to claim that people who inherit wealth did nothing to deserve that and yet people who want free college on-demand are deserving of that. If people who inherit wealth/estates have to pay taxes on that, than people who want to go to college should pay for that themselves. If there is an inheritable level of wealth that is worth $15, 000, 000.00, 50% of that should be inheritable and the other 50% can go to the government.

    Like

    1. Interesting thought. My view is that if you inherit, what $11 million? You ought to pay taxes on that. Perhaps the ‘free’ college ought to come with some strings attached? Like maybe you have to do community service or something like that. I’d have to look at what some other countries do. At least those that have been successful at it. I don’t know my friend. It appears you have a personal stake in this? If you do, it’s not for me to offer an opinion.

      Like

      1. Brookingslib, even though I oppose the estate tax on moral/philosophical grounds, here are my general thoughts: If someone wants to go to college for free, people who inherit wealth/estates should get to keep it all tax-free. If people who are subject to the estate tax have to pay that, people who want to go to college should pay the tuition out-of-pocket or take out student loans and then pay them back.

        Like

      2. I get it ragnarsbhut. We differ a bit on this. But that’s ok. That’s what debate is all about. And, I appreciate the respectful back and forth. Thanks for taking the time!

        Like

      3. Brookingslib, I personally would favor excluding family businesses from facing the estate tax. Here is what I mean: If a family that has a computer business wants to keep it going indefinitely, that should not be taxable under estate tax law as written. Just my thoughts.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Brookingslib, in my last comment, there was the redundant phrasing general thoughts in general. I meant to just say general thoughts. Can you edit that so it reads as I intended and then delete this comment? I do not require a response to this one.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s