The Gradual Leftward Shift in US Politics and Economy

[PAF]

Mises Wire
Allen Gindler
09/20/2024

The American political landscape is often perceived as sharply divided between left and right, with the Democratic Party representing the left and the Republican Party, by default, occupying the right. However, a deeper analysis of the policies and rhetoric of current presidential and vice-presidential candidates reveals a more complex reality. Using a framework of political analysis that considers attitudes towards private property rights, collectivization of consciousness, and wealth redistribution, it becomes evident that the United States is experiencing a gradual—but steady—shift towards the left.


The Democratic Party: A Firm Commitment to Evolutionary Socialism

The Democratic Party, represented by Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, has openly embraced left-wing policies. Their platform reflects a strong commitment to government intervention in the economy, the promotion of collective societal goals, and a clear agenda for wealth redistribution.


Private Property Rights and Wealth Redistribution

The Democratic platform advocates for significant regulation of private enterprises, particularly in sectors like healthcare, energy, and technology. However, these regulations lead to the violation of private property rights and free exchange, especially through the implementation of mandatory wealth redistribution policies at the state level. In essence, involuntary wealth redistribution acts as a subtle and gradual assault on private property rights. Under Harris and Walz, the Democrats strongly support wealth redistribution through progressive taxation, expanded social programs, and a higher minimum wage.

Walz’s governance of Minnesota serves as a striking example of aggressive wealth redistribution, reminiscent of the policies of ardent socialists from the past. Currently, Minnesota has the most progressive tax policies in the US. Walz introduced a new global tax on multinational companies, imposed a 1% surtax on investment income over $1 million annually, and raised gas taxes. He also passed a law granting Minnesotans up to 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, making the program more generous for low-income workers. The program uses a progressive rate, ensuring that low-income Minnesotans receive a higher percentage of their income while on leave.

Minnesota became the first state to establish a minimum wage for Uber and Lyft drivers. Simultaneously, Walz boasted about implementing the largest “tax cuts” in the state’s history by providing child tax credits and tax rebates of up to $1,300 for working-class Minnesotans, which some have dubbed “Walz checks.” It’s clear that Walz is positioning himself as a champion of the “working class,” typically at the expense of businesses, which are the primary creators of national wealth.


Collectivization of Consciousness

The Democratic Party under Harris and Tim Walz has increasingly promoted a form of collectivization of consciousness, particularly through education and cultural institutions. This involves shaping societal norms and values through government policies and social pressures, often leading to the indoctrination of certain ideologies and the suppression of dissent. Thus, the Democratic platform strongly supports integrating concepts such as Critical Race Theory (CRT) and gender studies into the public education system. These teachings, which are often presented as objective and scientific, are viewed by critics as forms of ideological indoctrination that promote a divisive understanding of race and identity.

The Democratic Party’s alignment with the “woke” movement has furthered the collectivization of consciousness. The movement promotes a heightened awareness of social justice issues but has also been associated with punitive measures against those who are perceived to violate its standards. These policies have led to increased censorship, self-censorship, and the suppression of opposing viewpoints. Cancel culture, in particular, has become a tool for enforcing ideological conformity, often leading to the public shaming and ostracization of individuals for their views.

Therefore, The Democratic Party has long since vacated the political center and is racing full steam ahead toward the socialist goal. This shift is reminiscent of Edward Bernstein’s (1850–1932) concept of evolutionary socialism, which argues that socialism can be achieved over time through gradual reforms and changes in cultural standards within the capitalist system.


The Republican Party: Conservative Populism with Left-Leaning Elements

The Republican Party, traditionally considered a bastion of right-wing ideology, has been losing that attribute with each election. In the current election cycle, under Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, it has adopted a platform that embraces populist and economic nationalist policies. These policies, while framed in conservative rhetoric, often incorporate elements that are more affiliated with left-wing principles.


Private Property Rights and Wealth Redistribution

Trump’s economic policies are a mix of left-wing populism and right-wing conventionalism. For example, the Trump campaign supports extending the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) and recommends further reducing the corporate tax rate to 15%. Additionally, the campaign advocates eliminating the income tax on Social Security benefits and the tip tax. These measures align with the traditional right-wing agenda of maintaining low taxes, increasing individual savings, and boosting the population’s purchasing power and potential for future investments.

At the same time, Trump and Vance’s focus on “America First” policies emphasizes protecting American workers and industries over global free trade. This economic nationalism, which includes tariffs and other trade barriers, is a departure from traditional right-wing free-market principles and aligns more closely with left-leaning economic populism. These protectionist measures are intended to preserve domestic jobs and industries, reflecting a willingness to intervene in the market to achieve national economic goals.

The Republican platform, while generally opposed to direct wealth redistribution, has nonetheless embraced certain policies that have redistributive effects. For example, their support for import tax (10% across-the-board), government subsidies for specific industries, and raising federal minimum wage (up to $20 per Vance), indicates a willingness to use government power to redistribute economic benefits, albeit in a less direct manner than the Democrats.

Trump has advocated for significant federal investment in infrastructure, proposing large-scale spending on roads, bridges, and other public works projects. This approach, often associated with Keynesian economics, involves using government spending to stimulate economic growth and job creation. It contrasts with the right-wing emphasis on limited government and is more aligned with left-leaning economic policies.

Trump’s rhetoric frequently centers on support for the working class, with policies designed to appeal to blue-collar workers. This includes renegotiating trade deals, implementing tariffs, and supporting policies aimed at directly benefiting American labor. While tax cuts and deregulation are traditional right-wing policies, the populist focus on protecting and uplifting the working class through government action aligns more closely with left-leaning economic populism.

More importantly, the Republican platform no longer views the state as a necessary evil whose appetite and influence should be curbed. On the contrary, Trump and Vance see the state as a vital economic player and a provider of wealth and other benefits to the population. This marks a significant shift from the Reagan-era conservative view on government and the economy. Essentially, the Republican Party has vacated its center-right position on economic issues and has become a center-left party.


Collectivization of Consciousness

Although Trump and Vance promote a form of nationalism that emphasizes American identity, their approach involves uniting the population around a specific set of values and ideals. This focus on collective identity and national unity, even if rooted in conservative values, aligns with the concept of collectivization of consciousness. While their rally rhetoric is framed in terms of patriotism and national identity, it also reflects a collectivist approach, marking a departure from the strict individualism typically associated with the right.


The US is Moving Left No Matter Who Wins

Analyzing the positions of both the Democratic and Republican parties through the outlined framework reveals a clear trend: the US is shifting left. The Democrats, led by Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, have fully embraced left-wing ideologies, advocating for extensive government intervention, collectivization of consciousness, and wealth redistribution. Meanwhile, the Republicans, despite their conservative rhetoric, have adopted populist, left-leaning elements, particularly in their broad government intervention in economic affairs, abandoning a free-market approach.

In other words, since the major parties in the US are left-wing and center-left, the overall trajectory of development is toward the left—either moving quickly with the Democrats or walking slowly with the Republicans. As the country continues to evolve, this trend is likely to persist, further shaping the future of American governance and societal norms in ways that depart from the traditional right-wing framework. Unfortunately, demographic, cultural, and educational shifts in society since World War II have paved the way for the widespread adoption of a collectivist mentality. Party policies today reflect these changes.

This is a sad reality, especially for those with strong libertarian views, who once again face the dilemma of choosing the “lesser of two evils.” Regardless of who wins, the overarching policy will focus on “how the government can solve the problem,” highlighting the collectivist mindset that dominates modern politicians in both the Democratic and Republican parties.




https://mises.org/mises-wire/gradual-leftward-shift-us-politics-and-economy


​

 

[fisharmor]

It’s clear that Walz is positioning himself as a champion of the “working class,” typically at the expense of businesses, which are the primary creators of national wealth.

​

​

I think one of the main problems in American society is that the individual workers in the "working class" - even the white collar ones at this point - kinda have a point about getting screwed by the business they work for.
I can't speak for the blue collar except to say they have been pitted directly against their employers for over a century now and I don't expect it's a whole lot different these days.

For the white collar, though, employees are probably more cogs in their machine than blue collar workers have been in a long, long time. I've been involved in hiring enough over the last 15 years to know how it goes: you look for someone with the skillset and you're basically not allowed to look at anything else. On-the-job training of someone you know will learn it and be a good fit aren't a thing anymore, at least not in IT. And yes, it used to be, 20 years ago. You make yourself look like a cog and you get picked up and put in the machine - which is exactly as fulfilling as it sounds.

So it's no wonder this tired old saw keeps working - 'we're gonna protect workers'. The problem is that very few in American society understand or would even bother to look into how companies got to this point. For people who already hate the state it's kinda easy to see ways the state has made it this way. But for people who love the state, it's hopeless, and we're gonna get more state to fix problems the state causes.

​

The Republican Party, traditionally considered a bastion of right-wing ideology, has been losing that attribute with each election. In the current election cycle, under Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, it has adopted a platform that embraces populist and economic nationalist policies. These policies, while framed in conservative rhetoric, often incorporate elements that are more affiliated with left-wing principles.

It's just a morning of exasperation for me, I guess... it's so stupefyingly obvious. It's like when people say "if you give people money for having children out of wedlock, you're gonna get more children out of wedlock". It's as obvious as "if you leave the food out, you're gonna get roaches".
For some reason people aren't capable of making the mental leap to "if you vote for leftist Republicans, you're gonna get more leftist Republicans".
We even have our own guy who has made it his life's mission to show up here and remind everyone we're supposed to be leaving the food out.

​

The US is Moving Left No Matter Who Wins

​

I don't know why more people don't know this, especially here, but the reason some of us wouldn't shut up about RFK is because we actually did have a conservative candidate. Anyone who listened to the Tucker interview would have heard him say yes, he's an environmentalist and believes the state should help protect the environment, but then went off for 10 minutes about ways the state can help protect the environment through the free market. He was the most ideal candidate since Ron Paul (only because Vivek dropped out) but people who are supposed to be conservative end up smearing shit all over people who are at least saying the things that we're supposed to want to hear.

I just don't get it... we have other people who deserve our attention who are at least saying they're committed to putting the food away, but most of America seems happy with the roaches. I get that there's the "they'll never be allowed to win" argument but FFS they're openly trying to murder the center-left populist you're actually voting for, so the argument that they'll try to prevent actual conservatives getting into power doesn't really track.