United Kingdom

Corbyn Envy on the British Right

And some Sanders envy here in the U.S.

|

Crusaders against greed
Archie Comics

It isn't surprising that people keep comparing Jeremy Corbyn, the British Labour Party's new leader, to Bernie Sanders, the independent senator challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. Both are socialist insurgents trying to take charge—in Corbyn's case successfully—of their respective countries' more left-leaning major political party.

But there are some significant differences between them, and they should be noted. Corbyn is much more radical than Sanders, in both bad ways and good. While Sanders preaches a Scandinavian-stye social democracy with more regulations and redistribution, Corbyn goes further, calling for renationalizing industries. On foreign policy, Corbyn is an anti-imperial, anti-NATO sort while Sanders sometimes supports American interventions abroad. Corbyn is also friendlier to immigration than Sanders is. Corbyn's critics often accuse him of being stuck in the 1980s; he certainly has a lot more in common with the '80s iteration of Bernie Sanders than the current model.

Another difference: Although Corbyn stands to Sanders' left, he managed to pull off an upset and win the leadership of his party. Sanders' chances of beating Clinton for the nomination are still pretty small, despite his strong numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Still, Sanders and Corbyn clearly have a lot in common. One undersung similarity is the envy Corbyn inspires in parts of the British right. Here's Peter Hitchens:

Jeremy Corbyn and his famous facial hair
David Holt/Creative Commons

If (like me) you have attended any of Mr Corbyn's overflowing campaign meetings, you will have seen the hunger—among the under-30s and the over-50s especially—for principled, grown-up politics instead of public relations pap….Mr Corbyn reminds mature people of the days when the big parties really differed. He impresses the young because he doesn't patronise them, and obviously believes what he says….

I dislike many of Mr Corbyn's opinions—his belief in egalitarianism and high taxation, his enthusiasm for comprehensive schools, his readiness to talk to terrorists and his support for the EU. Oddly enough, these are all policies he shares with the Tory Party.

But I like the honest way he states them, compared with the Tories' slippery pretence of being what they're not.

My hope, most unlikely to be realised, is that a patriotic, conservative and Christian equivalent of Mr Corbyn will emerge to take him on, and will demonstrate, by his or her strength of conviction, that there is an even greater demand for that cause than there is for old-fashioned leftism. In any case, I think any thoughtful British person should be at least a little pleased to see the PR men and the special advisers and the backstairs-crawlers of British politics so wonderfully wrong-footed by a bearded old bicyclist.

Hitchens is a maverick among conservatives—he shares some of Corbyn's dissident foreign-policy views, and he agrees with him about renationalizing the railroads—but he certainly isn't a socialist ideologue. His comments do not reflect a covert sympathy for Corbyn's worldview, just a bit of jealousy for Hitchens' counterparts on the left who have managed to put one of their own into a position of influence. That and a general desire to see the Overton window widened.

Sanders inspires sentiments like that in the U.S. too. There is no shortage of vocal conservatives in our election, but you still sometimes hear a plaintive I-wish-our-guys-would-be-that-bold, at-least-he-has-principles respect for Sanders on the right.

That longing for a wider range of debate came up in another British writer's reactions to the party fight. Unlike Hitchens, Brendan O'Neill isn't really a man of the right, though I sometimes see him classified as one; last I checked, he was an odd sort of libertarian/Marxist hybrid. It's safe to say, in any event, that Corbyn's kind of leftism is not the variety that interests O'Neill. And yet over the summer he found himself writing this about Corbyn's centrist critics:

Welcome to Parliament!

The essence of Corbynphobia was summed up in a newspaper editorial which claimed his growing popularity is a 'symptom of a bigger problem: Labour's drift from the middle ground'. So the middle ground is the only acceptable place in politics? The middle ground has become a kind of black hole, sucking in everyone and everything. The crisis of both right-wing confidence and left-wing ideas in recent years has generated a tyranny of middle-thinking, of safe, consensual ideas, where politics has come to mean little more than managing the economy and everyday life, and where argumentativeness has been recast as bullying. 'Abandon ideology all ye who enter here'—they should hang that at the entrance to parliament.

What gets presented to us as a soft, caring new politics of consensus is in fact an intolerant new conformism, as Farage and Corbyn have discovered. Refuse to elevate electability over all other concerns, refuse to sing from the same PC, mild-mannered, green-tinted, low-horizoned, post-politics hymn sheet as everyone else, and you'll become an object of scorn.

"Farage" is a reference is Nigel Farage, the leader of the anti-EU, anti-immigrant U.K. Independence Party (who is claiming Corbyn's rise will be a "huge boost" for his party). Hitchens alluded to Farage in his column too. It's a common comparison—it isn't unusual to see Brits saying things like "While their politics couldn't be more different, both Jeremy Corbyn and UKIPs Nigel Farage epitomise the anti-Westminster view that many in the general public hold."

Here in America, meanwhile, pundits love to go looking for common ground between Bernie Sanders and the closest we currently have to a Farage figure, Donald Trump. So I suppose that qualifies as a Sanders/Corbyn parallel as well.

(Postscript: Some of you have objected to the comparison in that last paragraph. So for the record: I'm well aware that the differences between Trump and Farage are even larger than the differences between Sanders and Corbyn. I'm just referring to the fact that both occupy the nationalist space in their countries' respective political landscapes.)

NEXT: Carly Fiorina Uses Trump Dis to Her Advantage in New Campaign Ad

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. he agrees with him about renationalizing the railroads?but he certainly isn’t a socialist

    as the Onion so eloquently put it, “why do all these faggots keep sucking my dick”

    1. You know who else wanted to nationalize the railroads?

      1. Wesley Mouch?

    2. Peter Hitchens is pretty much the platonic ideal of a conservative. He really just wants to world to remain exactly the way it was when he was 13.

      As a result, his political views are sometimes incredibly confusing because he’ll support policies that make no sense in conjunction with his other ideas and he does it basically out of nostalgia.

  2. “among the under-30s and the over-50s especially”

    i suppose in the US we have the baby boomers and their kids…. (tho over-50s should be over-60s)

    …and then all the people in the middle, currently expected to pay for their respective appetites for public-spending.

    1. “over-50s” pretty much defines “boomers”.

      The youngest boomers only started collecting SS about seven years ago and full Medicare/SS about four.

      The youngest boomers are now about fifty-one years old.

  3. “My hope, most unlikely to be realised, is that a patriotic, conservative and Christian equivalent of Mr Corbyn will emerge to take him on, and will demonstrate, by his or her strength of conviction, that there is an even greater demand for that cause than there is for old-fashioned leftism. In any case, I think any thoughtful British person should be at least a little pleased to see the PR men and the special advisers and the backstairs-crawlers of British politics so wonderfully wrong-footed by a bearded old bicyclist.”

    I like that the two most entertaining British polemicists of the last 20 years are from the same family. I’m also not even sure how it happened given that their dad was a quiet navy man without much education.

    1. I was thinking the same thing. I miss Hitch.

  4. Maybe we really are seeing the death of PC. It seems at the moment that refusing to back down instead of releasing a carefully crafted apology when challenged publicly is being heavily rewarded both in business and politics. Lord knows the 24/7 in your face outrage cycle fueled by the internet has burned me out and I can’t be the only one.

  5. “Here in America, meanwhile, pundits love to go looking for common ground between Bernie Sanders and the closest we currently have to a Farage figure, Donald Trump.”

    This is immensely offensive to Nigel Farage and there is no comparison between the two, other than a general desire for less immigration.

    1. Yet they both married broads from abroad.

    2. I chose the phrase “closest we currently have to a Farage figure” carefully. It’s about the issues that define his place in the political theater, not the sum total of their platforms. Trump is, in his buffoonish way, the man occupying the nationalist space on the landscape.

      1. “Trump is, in his buffoonish way, the man occupying the nationalist space on the landscape.’

        I suppose.

        I still think irish has a point that its an unfair comparison to Farage.

        If the UKIP position is “nationalist”, its due to opposition to policies which would integrate the UK economy further into the EU… a prospect the US has no parallel to.

        IOW, they are “nationalist” largely because there is a quite-real threat of their country’s absorption into a multi-lateral European union.

        but the UKIP is otherwise (to my understanding) the most vocal proponent of limited-government in the UK. More ‘conservative’ than even traditional UK tories.

        Trump’s position within the GOP… depending on what day of the week it is…. seems actually closer to the left – being a proponent of big government policy like the ACA, protectionist trade policy, etc.

        I think trump is more defined by his Bluster and insincerity on policy, frankly…. while the UKIP is if anything the most ideologically principled political wing in the UK

        Then again, I don’t spend much time paying attention to UK politics, so maybe i miss something.

        1. I agree with you that the UK’s situation vis a vis the EU is very different from anything the US faces. (And I agree with UKIP’s Euroskepticism while disagreeing with its views on immigration.) But these are reasons I said “closest we currently have to a Farage figure” rather than “the American Farage.”

          1. “””the American Farage.””

            Well, oooh lah-dee dah

      2. How is Trump closer to Farage, than, say, Walker is? Or for that matter, Jindal, as disapprovingly quoted by Welch this morning:

        “We must insist on assimilation. Immigration without assimilation is an invasion. We need to tell folks who want to come here they need to come here legally. Learn English, adopt our values, roll up your sleeves and get to work.”

        This could come out of UKIP manifesto. Much closer than Trump’s “Bleeding out of Whatever” and “WINNING!”
        Do you think Rubio, Cruz, Walker, Jindal, Carson etc. are not nationalists and only Trump is?
        Or you may be trying to say that Farage is closest UK has to a Trump figure, which is probably accurate. Although I’ll argue, Corbyn is much more in line with Trump as far as stupid-stuff-per-minute. Hell, Corbyn wants UK out of EU more than Farage does (Farage would be all right with EU as Free Trade bloc, Corbyn wants none of that).

        1. Do you think Rubio, Cruz, Walker, Jindal, Carson etc. are not nationalists and only Trump is?

          I think Trump’s the preeminent public figure at the moment. Also the “outsider” channeling “public anger,” as people like to say.

          1. Which then should make him Corbyn, not Farage, who doesn’t claim to be an “outsider” any more, given that he’d been a politician for 20 years. And who, unlike Trump, has a party, policy, some accomplishment and is far, far better at verbally slaughtering his opponents.
            Sorry, but for Trump, you need some weird hybrid of P.T. Barnum and Mussolini. He’s,sadly, an all-American creation, likes of which I don’t even remember seeing back in the Balkans at their worst.

            1. Which then should make him Corbyn, not Farage, who doesn’t claim to be an “outsider” any more, given that he’d been a politician for 20 years.

              Sanders has been a pol for even longer?hell, he’s been in office even longer?and he still gets the tag.

              1. Honestly, does he get it or just promote himself that way? If you caucus with the party that has Senate majority, and vote for the legislation they want to pass, you’re not the outsider. Why media would entertain going along with it is probably an interesting question – even if you want to run a horse race, Clinton is more of an outsider than Sanders is!

  6. “While Sanders preaches a Scandinavian-stye social democracy with more regulations and redistribution, Corbyn goes further, calling for renationalizing industries.”

    To what extent is that because Corbyn is in a country that has already realized many of Sanders’ goals?

    And renationalization? The UK may come to wish Scotland had left. If Scotland left the UK, it’d be like California left the U.S. Labor would hardly matter anymore.

    1. Although the SNP skunked Labour in the last British elections which is one of the reasons there was a leadership contest.

    2. I’m in favor of Scottish independence for the same reason I’m in favor of Quebec independence. It’d be better on both newly independent and rump country than what they have right now.
      Problem is, having Corbyn will increase the MP count from Scotland for Labour, and, unless there’s a corresponding drop in English MPs, he will able to claim to have improved Labour’s standing and remain a leader. At which point they are guaranteed to win, because public will tire of three Conservative terms.

  7. While Sanders preaches a Scandinavian-stye social democracy with more regulations and redistribution, Corbyn goes further, calling for renationalizing industries.

    You don’t think this isn’t Sanders’ end game?

    1. You don’t think this isn’t Sanders’ end game?

      I really don’t know what Sanders’ endgame is. He certainly used to call for that sort of thing, and perhaps he still supports it in his heart of hearts. Perhaps he’d even support it again if he felt it were politically possible. But I’m writing about their public platforms, not their inner lives.

      1. You know who else only wrote about an up-and-coming politician’s public platform?

        1. Mencken, on DER KAISER??

      2. Isn’t the ability to see beyond mere words and peer into the souls of political figures a pretty basic skill for political writers?

        1. No, that’s God. Easy mistake to make.

          1. That’s what I love about you.

  8. One major difference between America and England, is England has never tried socialism in any way, so they don’t really have an example of it not working. So voters there can be forgiven.

    1. Heh. Hilarious!

      1. He was being facetious.

        I fall for it every time. Well, almost…

        In my defense, though, if it was funny, it was funny because people really say that.

        1. I refuse to put /sarc tags at the end of my sarcastic comments. I feel it cheapens the delivery.

  9. British politics so wonderfully wrong-footed by a bearded old bicyclist.

    Is Hitchens referring to Corbyn or this well known socialist?

  10. Feel the Cor-Bern?

    1. Did you know that #feelthebern is an actual hashtag used by Bernie supporters? That’s some awesome unintentional hilarity.

  11. safe, consensual ideas, where politics has come to mean little more than managing the economy and everyday life, and where argumentativeness has been recast as bullying. ‘Abandon ideology all ye who enter here’?they should hang that at the entrance to parliament.

    What gets presented to us as a soft, caring new politics of consensus is in fact an intolerant new conformism, as Farage and Corbyn have discovered.

    Ironically, it’s the safe consensus middle ground politics that gets people like Corbyn and Sanders. It’s what got Seattle Kshama Sawant (someone who believes in the equivalent of economic creation science).

    The local media (or polity in general) won’t take a firm stand against anything she believes or spouts, because “the council needs a populist voice”. This olive-branch-extending only gets you more crackpot, not less.

  12. “England has never tried socialism in any way”

    One for you, 19 for me–cause I’m the taxman!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzLe8R1bL4c

    95% tax rate.

    95%.

    What about the British government’s nationalization of industry before Thatcher?

    Even in Thatcher’s day, the government owned hundreds of coal mines. Those strikes were against her privatizing them. She sold off British Steel.

    Were you being facetious?

    1. Were you being facetious?

      Me. Am I ever facetious?

    2. 95% tax rate…

      The top marginal tax rate under Eisenhower was 92%. Of course, precious few actually paid that rate. The same applies to Britain.

      1. A biography of Tolkien I had read mentioned Tolkien, sometime after The Lord of the Rings was published in America, was in the top tax bracket. The biography mentioned the exact rate for that bracket but it’s been too long since I read the biography to remember the exact percentage beyond it was in the 90s.

        I mentioned this to a former college roommate of mine. The roommate was a socialist, and an especially self-righteous one. His response? “I’m sorry, but if you make that much money you deserve to be taxed that much.” I don’t think he was actually sorry.

        1. Deserve ain’t got nuthin to do with it

          1. Exactly.

            Thinking about this more, I think the biography mentioned the top rate in the UK at the time was 98%, not 95%.

            1. So at 98%, why would anyone try?

              1. It’s essentially designed to be a salary cap.

  13. side note = Archie FTW

    Jesse goes the extra mile in bringing the entertaining imagery. No stock photos and weaksauce alt-text in his game.

    1. Better alt text would have been a commentary about wearing all-matching denim.

      I’m surprised at you, Gilmore.

      1. Maybe he just didn’t want to upset the Canadian contingent around here.

        1. No, it’s fine, as long as you don’t speak ill of the touque.
          Or try to pass that weird idea that “beanie” can be worn without the propeller.

  14. I think one of two things is happening here:
    1) 30s-style pinko idiot politics are currently legitimately popular;
    2) People are so desperate to support someone who believes something that they’ll support someone who believes anything, no matter how stupid, as long as he appears to believe it genuinely.

    Ponder this on the Tree of Woe: which is worse?

    1. That we get the Kim Davis culture war shenanigans along with it?

      1. Blue state Millennials would support Hitler because of his progressive economic agenda of redirecting the results of production and industrial purpose to the public interest.

  15. Socialism is appealing to those who realize they have nothing of value to offer the world. So, they demand the government steal from those who do produce so they can have a better standard of living. Contrary to the narrative, Socialism is all about selfishness–give me what they earned!

    1. An empty appeal to emotion that basically defines libertarian objection to socialism (while libertarians insist that supporters of socialism are operating only from the emotion of envy). A national economic system is only tangentially related to what individuals earn. And whether a wealthy person, or a poor person, earned his station in life, is something that is not in any case 100% determinable. You conflate merit-based earning (“She earned the respect of admirers”) with all forms of making money–as long as it didn’t come via progressive government transfer. It is, in the end, incoherent. If breaking into a shop and taking the money from the till were perfectly legal, you must claim, then the robber thus earned the money, and you should pat him on the head for ingenuity.

      Scandinavians take pride in their economic model in a way that is hard for Americans understand (after decades of Red Scare brainwashing). Are they all immoral thieving monsters for preferring a bigger role for the state and a strong welfare system? Is their landing at the top of every list of happiness and well-being a freakish result of something entirely different and peculiar about their culture, or is it something they would do best to sacrifice so that a few can get fabulously rich and then have little internet poodles defend the system that favors them?

      1. You should probably actually dig into scandinavia. And look at their purchasihg power and disposable income. You seem to have this weird view that the govt knows what is best for everyone else. Like the war on poverty which had the opposite effect of what it was supposed to do…it keeps people in poverty. Or maybe that was design since lbj said something about a group voting d for next 200 years

        Anyway people earn a lot because they provide value to others.

        When are you going to help me out?

        Does it bother you that capitalism has brought you the riches and priveleges you enjoy today?

        Check your american privelege

        1. Capitalism alone has done no such thing. Any prosperous country works with a mixed economy. And once again you’re lying about the war on poverty, but carry on believing that crypto-racist crap, you won’t stop on my account no matter how clearly I spell it out for you. Of anyone here I am likely to be the one pointing out the privileges that come with the dumb luck of being born in America, so I’ve checked it plenty. I also think it could be a lot better. But that would require ditching infantile black/white notions coming from radical anarchists and adopting the saner, more European perspective that government isn’t going away any time soon, and so we might as well make it work well and for maximum benefit.

          1. Generations of people still in poverty. Much success! Curious about your racist name calling… what is that based on? Lbj said it not me

            Can you detail how europe has it better than here with respect to all those govt programs? You may want to dig into the free college and free healthcare to see what that entails. Perhaps consult people from those nations. Sounds like you may be all about the black and white

            You should be thankful to live in america. Check your privelege

            1. It’s not all black and white. Nobody has found the perfect system, and the US certainly hasn’t. As you acknowledge in the same breath by pointing out the generations still in poverty. You imply that you’d only consider the great society programs a success if they achieved utopia. But a perfectly reasonable alternate claim, based on actual data, is that they worked just fine, but failed to achieve utopia. Despite multiple recessions, poverty has never returned to the extremes that happened before a welfare state was in place. Your rhetoric is crypto-racist because it claims that poor blacks have been voting for policies that are in reality bad for them, but for some reason they just can’t figure it out. I wonder what makes them so stupid.

              1. What utopia? They proceeded to do what lbj wanted them to do, get people dependent on uncle sam.

                Poverty is relative. You can thank capitalism for that…the profit motive has led to technological innovations that give us the standard of living we enjoy today.

                The welfare programs allow one to get by. it doesn’t improve their situation and has created a culture of dependence among all walks of life.

                I didn’t say anything about them being stupid…you did. Poor folks aren’t just blacks fyi. A lot of poor whites in generational poverty. The welfare programs keep them in poverty…they are making rational economic decisions by taking the handouts. It isn’t helping them get ahead. That is the biggest fear among D politicians…independence.

                1. Yeah, this is the cliched pyschobabble that is always employed against the welfare state. That it encourages laziness, but also must presume that there are always jobs for people who seek them and that nobody ever has catastrophic bad luck. (Of course by this logic we must totally discourage inheritance–we wouldn’t want to encourage the children of people with money to be layabouts.)

                  The logic fails even at a passing glance, of course, and again exposes a bigoted core. Couldn’t a welfare check provide someone with just enough to pay for transportation to go job hunting? Isn’t a person more free to pursue self-improvement and productivity when they don’t have to spend all their time trying to figure out how to get basic needs met?

                  Lots of people have money they didn’t get in exchange for labor. How deeply into everyone’s personal lives do you suggest government poke itself so that we are sure everyone has only what they earned? Or should we simply provide for a safety net so that capitalism works as you claim it does, and stop with the bigoted and factually wrong moral busybody crap?

                  1. hey please stop projecting your interesting views regarding race onto me.

                    The problem with your safety net comment is that you want it as a way of life. I prefer it as a leg up. In other words, your vision encourages dependence while mine is an actual net.

                    There are jobs out there fyi. I see postings everywhere. You want an example of how it encourages laziness? The govt has set it up in a way such you take a significant cut in benefits if you get a job. Thus the rational economic decision there is to….not have a job.

                  2. When you resort to name calling like that i assume you dont have much of an argument as seeing how that suggests you are upset (see the recent star trek) and or you actually have those views

      2. There’s very little difference between a robber who breaks into a store or home and takes what isn’t theirs, and people who vote for politicians who will use their armed thugs to accomplish the same theft. My main complaint with Socialism is that it’s not optional–everyone has to be onboard or else it doesn’t work. Dissenters must be silenced, punished, or eliminated. In a Libertarian society Socialists would be free to set up their own communities and communes where they can practice what they preach. Libertarians in a Socialist society don’t have that option.

        1. So how small do the communes have to be before they become legitimate? Say, 5 million, the population of Denmark? Last I checked Danes were perfectly free to vote for politicians who promise to dismantle their welfare state. They simply choose not to. If 10% of the population wants to, should they get their way because they have angels on their shoulders? Of course it’s optional. Optional in a democracy means you get your way if a majority agrees with you. Or you can move away. Things would be no more or less optional in a society with a laissez-faire system. Or do you think we should impose that on everyone as a default, and then let them go form their “communes”?

          1. You are the one that wants to imposw your views on others.

            You should really be grateful at how nice you have it here. Perhaps you can help me out seeing how generous you are

            1. We both want our views to be imposed on others. Your system is not a default state of nature. You just want to claim it is so you can pretend that I’m the totalitarian–when I’m the one defending democratic choice and you’re the one insisting that people shouldn’t be able to choose a certain form of society, because it’s just wrong and you’re smarter than everyone else.

              Is it so nice here, or did LBJ condemn generations to poverty and stupidity? Get your claims straight.

              1. So i am imposing my views by allowing others to choose and not interfering with them?

                Lol you are a hoot. Capitalism is great….learn to love it big guy

                Check your privelege

              2. Democratic choice = forcing others to do what you want is what you seem to be saying.

                A default state of nature? Wtf? If progs understood nature they would understand why their policies fail. instead it is always someone else’s fault so that justifies more prog policies.

                honestly progs seem pretty conservative.

                answer what is human nature: incentive

              3. Democratic choice = forcing others to do what you want is what you seem to be saying.

                A default state of nature? Wtf? If progs understood nature they would understand why their policies fail. instead it is always someone else’s fault so that justifies more prog policies.

                honestly progs seem pretty conservative.

                answer what is human nature: incentive

                1. Which is why we need to police when the wealthy make money by duping and fleecing low-income homebuyers and wreck the global economy at least as much as we police the poor and their inappropriate use of food stamps. But you’re only focused on the smaller problem.

                  1. You do realize that government was the one that encouraged “everyone needs a home!” in the first place right? You should probably read up on on DofHUD and DOJ wanting to promote giving out home loans.

                    And you are making up what i am focused on. You have no idea. I dont support the government encouraging lax lending and also don’t like bail-outs for risky business.

          2. Each state in the US should be treated almost like a small country, with a tiny federal government doing only those things defined by the Constitution (national defense, interstate commerce, ensuring basic human rights, etc.). This would allow each state to establish whatever type of government they choose. Moving to another state under our current system accomplishes very little when there’s a massive, powerful Federal Government controlling every aspect of our lives. I don’t want to participate in Social Security and would rather invest my money as I choose (even if that means losing it all), but I’m not allowed to.

            1. Seems pretty arbitrary. California has the population of a decent sized country. Should it be split into smaller bits? What’s the population at which a community becomes voluntary?

              Sounds like you just don’t like, specifically, the US federal government. There’s a long tradition of that–but it’s not a particularly pretty one. I think that if you don’t like the idea of government imposition itself, you have far more to bitch about at the state and local levels. Do you really feel the federal government controlling every aspect of your life? I almost never interact with it, personally. It’s the local laws and bullshit I have to watch out for most of the time. And lots of the rights I enjoy are thanks to the federal government, and they’d surely be taken away by the theocratic psychopaths who control my state if they were allowed to.

              1. California has some pretty high income inequality and high poverty despite being a utopia of progressive policies.

              2. The US Federal Government is a necessary evil, but it’s at least 10 times bigger than it should be. As for their impact on my life, I was recently demoted from a salary position to an hourly one because the Feds decided that I don’t qualify for salary. So, I’m punching a timeclock and being treated like an untrustworthy child just like I was 30 years ago. That’s only the most recent incident, there have been many others and likely more to come.

                1. So you are now entitled to get paid for overtime and you’re bitching that you have to punch a time clock so your company can tell if you’re owed it?

                  I get the complaint, though, I prefer having a salary and not punching in and out. But I’m too lazy to ever do overtime anyway.

                  1. Confirming what i suspected. You are lazy hence your desire for a welfare state providing goods to you

                  2. “So you are now entitled to get paid for overtime”

                    No, my company doesn’t pay overtime. Ever. I’m still working extra hours and not getting paid for it because deadlines must be met, and it will reflect badly on my review if they’re not. But if I need to leave early then I must burn my vacation time of not get paid. Once again, the government poking their nose where it doesn’t belong winds up harming the very people they claim to want to help.

                    1. But without the government regulations your employer would simply be able to screw you over all the more. Pay you what you’re worth in a context with no floor on wages. Forget about overtime. Sure you could go work somewhere else, but the floor would be lower for everyone, so good luck finding such perks as vacation time elsewhere.

                    2. “without the government regulations your employer would simply be able to screw you over all the more.”

                      I’m fully capable of negotiating my own wage and benefits. I had no complaints here until the Feds stepped in and mandated these new rules. And as I’ve said, their meddling has made my work environment worse, not better. All my coworkers feel the same way.

                    3. This. He doesnt consider the govt may be screwing people with higher taxes which he advocates and regs

                      Tony, you seem to give lip service about caring about others wages and not screwing others over. A high wage is meaningless if i taxed at say 100 pct by the govt. What tax level or levels do you support and why? How did you come to that conclusion? Would you be the sole determiner of what is fair or would you consult with people like libertarians?

                      Reason i ask is you and our prog colleagues seem to think they should be the ones to make such determinations…like a superiority i know what is best for you thing

                    4. Why would you continue to work at a place that screws you over? You are free to leave. Turnover is expensive. You have to pay for talent.

                      You do realize what one may consider being screwes over may be ok to another employee.

                      Why do you or govt get to determine what is and isnt screwed over? Can you break down what is acceptable?

  16. tony and his ilk follow an ideology where it is making themselves feel good at someone else’s expense. i also think they may be wanted to be treated like babies their entire lives.

    me: “hey small business owner you need to pay your employees 15 dollars an hour as you are exploiting them and they cant make a living wage”

    business owner “i wont be able to afford that”

    me “too bad you dont deserve to be in business then”

    15 min wage is imposed (makes me feel smug) and employee who i supposedly CARED ABOUT not making a living wage proceeds to lose their job with no wage now and has to ry and find another. But hey i made myself feel good

    1. Intentions are all that matters. And you know what they say about Good Intentions…

  17. Tony say a Pub gets the white House with a red senate and house. They pass a bill to help progressives realize their generousness by saying if you identify as a prog…then 90% of wealth will be given to the poor. Would you support this? Seeing how you support the democratic process which was done here.

    1. That would be a clear violation of the constitution.

      All governments do is take taxes and pay for stuff. You presumably think it’s perfectly OK to do this if it means paying for police and courts to protect your property claim. You are entitled not to like the other stuff it does, but that doesn’t make it illegitimate. If you have such a problem with people choosing democratically for it to do stuff, explain what your alternative is. Just which form of tyranny do you prefer?

      1. How is that a violation while welfare programs arent? Which section btw?

        1. You can’t have laws that only apply to people with certain political beliefs, come on. I’m getting bored.

          1. Where does it say that?

          2. How do you explain exemptions for religions?

      2. Police is paid by local and state. Not much federal

  18. Tony do you support gay marriage bans? Since it was you know done by the democratic process

    1. You do get that favoring democracy over other forms of government doesn’t mean you have to like every single thing that comes out of a democratic government, right? What form of tyranny would you prefer as an alternative to democracy?

      1. It was a democratic choice as above you said we should honor

        1. As opposed to what?

          1. Didnt say anythimg about opposed. Just using your logic

            1. Because you, like I, cannot come up with an alternative that is not some form of tyranny.

              1. So you supported the bans back in the day?

  19. The Camaroons don’t seem to have a “center”, do they?

  20. You might also compare Corbyn and Sanders to Ron Paul, another example of a politician who took an independent position outside the mainstream.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.