United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Luntz Polling: Americans Are More Willing to Vote for Socialists
Source:
VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/posts/luntz-po ... willing-to-vote-for-socialists
Published: Oct 19, 2015
Author: Brenda Walker
Post Date: 2015-10-19 14:38:07 by nativist nationalist
Keywords: None
Views: 1928
Comments: 35
It’s interesting to see that Americans have become more open to socialism — pollster Frank Luntz found that nearly half of citizens would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Luntz thinks that outspoken socialist Bernie Sanders has charmed the voters with his persuasiveness and that accounts for much of the change, along with convenient political redefinitions. However, there’s a longer history of leftism being treated kindly by the press. The crimes of the left have never been presented by the media as a major evil: Hitler gets the monster treatment, while his mass-murder equals Mao and Stalin get a pass. In addition, capitalism has not been working very well for average Americans in recent years. Real wages have remained stagnant since the seventies, and the middle class continues to shrink. In the minds of many people, capitalism means the global economy forced upon us by the elites, in the form of immigration and outsourcing over decades that has been entirely negative for average Americans: jobs that couldn’t be sent overseas have been given to inexpensive immigrant workers. Meanwhile, the rich have done very well under the globalization they promoted. Frank Luntz discussed his poll findings with Tucker Carlson on Fox News Saturday. CARLSON: Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says he’s a democratic socialist. What do voters think? That used to be a really scary word — is it still? Pollster Frank Luntz spoke with a lot of people about this issue and he’s got the very latest from his research on it. Great to see you, Frank. LUNTZ: Thank you and what we found is that 47 percent of Americans now would consider — 46 percent — would consider voting for a socialist. It is no longer this demonized word and Bernie Sanders has completely changed it. You got the numbers there from June and I believe that those numbers have even increased. So we ask Democrats in our focus group we did a few days ago which is preferable socialism or capitalism and to my shock, more of them preferred socialism — that’s how much the Democratic Party’s changed. CARLSON: It just says a lot, I mean socialists, in the name of socialism, 80 million people were murdered last century. It wasn’t that long ago, we both remember, we’re not that old. LUNTZ: But that’s not the socialism they’re speaking of. So they’ll make the argument that having a police force is socialist because we’re paying for the common good and having a military is socialist, so they’re redefining what the terminology means, and they also believe that capitalism has failed because of this income inequality of CEOs making many millions of dollars and people still working at minimum wage. CARLSON: Well of course socialism has always been about arming the powerful; it’s always a species of fascism. It doesn’t surprise me there are more guns for the government LUNTZ: You keep going back 50 years, a hundred years — for them it’s what’s wrong with society today. And what i find interesting, and I’ve said to conservatives stop calling it crony capitalism because they don’t necessarily hear the word crony and it makes them think more negative of the word capitalism. The fact is to people capitalism is about profit and about Wall Street, rather than about opportunity and free markets, It’s far better to talk about economic freedom or financial freedom than it is capitalism. Tucker, our definitions are changing in politics because of this campaign. Donald Trump is having an impact, Bernie Sanders is having an impact and what we think in November of 2016 can be very different than October 2015 CARLSON: I completely agree with you. Let’s just give the party breakdown here. This is a question: would you be willing to vote for a socialist. Fifty-nine percent of Democrats say yes, 49 percent of independents — that’s really striking — and 26 percent of Republicans. What is going on? LUNTZ: What happened to Republicans? Yes it’s because capitalism in capitalism has been so demonized and so ripped apart by pundits in the media and even by candidates that socialism is no longer that horrible concept. CARLSON: A lot of this has gotta be a hangover from the 2008 financial crisis and its gotta be LUNTZ: And the fact that nobody went to jail which both Republicans and Democrats agree on that some of those people who perpetrated those financial disasters should have been held accountable and Tucker, without accountability, without personal responsibility, capitalism will continue to fall and socialism will continue to rise. It’s frightening but it’s true. CARLSON: It’s sort of interesting, but when Martha Stewart goes to jail for financial crimes but nobody goes after 2008 it does sort of raise questions. Poster Comment: Surprising for VDare, they seem to have left out that much of the increased receptivity to socialism is imported. The 1/10th of 1% are the ones importing this socialism, if it comes they need to reap what they've sown.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
(Edited)
lol... of course they are. Just look how many so called "conservatives" post here, and hate the rich, love drugs and remain silent towards social service type government growth. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I think the problem is sheeple do not understand socialism. They hear socialism and think oh good free stuff from government. They never realize taxes are taken from people and then filtered through a central location and then metered out to crony's and what is left gets back to the people as bribes to keep socialist in power. It works until there is no more money to be stolen from the productive.
I am one of those people to whom you refer. I do not claim to be a "conservative". Philosophically, I claim to be a Catholic. Catholics are very traditionalist on matters of family and personal sexual morality, and very communitarian on matters of economics. No party represents us well, so we split between the two parties. To be clear, Catholics do not hate the rich. We just see that the rich need to be prevented from accumulating excessive wealth and power to the detriment of everybody else. Catholics don't love drugs. We do love drug addicts, and even the drug peddlers, in the sense that we want them to break their addictions and stop peddling drugs. "Saving" people by destroying their lives through draconian laws is not the Catholic way. Social service type government growth is the sort of government growth that Catholics want to see, if the growth addresses a real need.
I am against full socialism as I am against full capitalism. Most of the system so called conservatives are defending is a mixed economic model. The economy works like an old fashioned corroborator - depending on the task the fuel air mixture is adjusted. Same with the economy - sometimes govt spending needs to be increased and safety nets applied and other times the govt should be hands off.
That's fuckin socialism or income redistribution, my holy buddy. Check yourself before you libtard wreck yourself. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
It is indeed income redistribution, of course. It isn't socialism, because the means of production can remain privately owned.
We do need government in any system. If you are heavy of the social net side then it just doesn't work, at all. I don't agree you need government supported social net. Its to cumbersome for government to deal with. Its best left to churches and charities. But the one thing progressives killed which I do believe needs to be allowed is mental institutions which have basically been outlawed. They also need to be paid for by the people because no family can take care of such a burden. We also don't temp unemployment insurance because it doesn't work. People will not find a job until the government benefits run out and they also do not save up for bad economic times. Spend like their will never be hard times! Sign of a idiot! The middle class is where government should focus its policies. Do not worry about the rich and poor because they live in their own world. Rich focus on the dollar and the poor just will not sacrifice in the right areas. Please do not respond that some have fallen on hard times for no luck of their own. These people can be helped through churches and charities. They also do not amount to drop in the river. Since the war poverty the poor have not seen any improvement and now are a permanent underclass. The rich run the government and fight for slices of the pie. People need to get it stuck in their heads. If government gets out of the way many things will solve themselves. You can't fix everything. Government can't hardly fix anything. Government is there to give people legal means of dealing with other people when nothing else has worked. Government also is there to protect the interest of the people from foreign places. When people talk about social net just remember almost every hard time can be traced right back to government interference into the daily lives of the people. Thats one of the major reasons government should be as small as possible!
Good post... especially this part I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Thanks.
Well, we fundamentally disagree on the nature of government and the economy. And neither of us is going to budge. You are hostile to the IDEA of government as a means of wealth redistribution for poverty relief and economic improvement. You reject it on a moral basis. And I reject the rejection of it also on a moral basis. Such is the impasse of America and the Western world. It is not resolvable. There's no place to meet in the middle because there's no will to do it, at all. You're certain you're right, and I know I am. Which means a wall and a trench line. But because I really am right, over time things drift in my direction. Your side loses and loses and loses, sort of like the Indians. Social security and unemployment insurance, universal public education and now, universal health insurance, are here to stay. The programs would be better than they are if people on the conservative right lent a hand to organize them better, make them more sensible, but you won't. You're still resisting the CONCEPT of Social Security, on principle. Earlier today we talked about how blacks don't get over it. But blacks in America were substiantially segregated by law until 1964, and by force until about 1969. Their oppression is within living memory. You think they should get over that. By contrast, your side lost the Social Security and Unemployment Insurance debate in 1932. That is only within living memory of the very old. You expect the Blacks to forget the oppression they directly experienced as a child, but you're still fighting Social Security and Unemployment Benefits, things that have been established in concrete for nearly a century. Who is it, exactly, that won't get past the past? Truth is, neither of us is going to get past the past. Truth also is that the Pope was always right about contraception, but the white West didn't listen. Sex without consequences was too great a lure. But there ARE consequences. The consequences are: no babies. Which means that America will certainly be Latino in 100 years, and Europe will be Arab. The Latinos are not going abolish Social Security or Unemployment Benefits, or Universal Health Insurance or Universal Public Education. They will enhance these programs because they virtually all benefited from them, and because social welfare is a Catholic virtue in any event. What that all means, net net, is that with the drift of time, the things I believe have been winning since the turn of the 20th Century, and look set to continue to advance and win in the 21st Century. But everything you believe in is falling to dust. It's too bad that we can't come to a meeting of the minds.
Earlier today we talked about how blacks don't get over it. But blacks in America were substiantially segregated by law until 1964, and by force until about 1969. Their oppression is within living memory. You think they should get over that. You're not right on this one. Justified is. You do speak of winning though. Satan is the runner of this system. Remember when he promised it all to Jesus. So things are getting worse and worse. We are racing towards the mark of the Beast and Armageddon. You say your side is winning. Satan is supposed to be winning in the end. Just saying. No I'm not saying you are satan. Not even close. I'm just saying you are mistaken and have your blinders on because you "are always right".
No, Stone, you and your side are wrong, because you have no Christian charity or pity in your heart, and because you have a very, very strong sense of racial difference,. even though Paul told you that there was neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male or female, for all are one in Christ Jesus. You insist on adding onto it all of the evil crap that has been the feature of American culture: a particularly pernicious form of black slavery and segregation, that endured into our own lifetimes, because Americans were bigots. There was no Christian principle behind it. It was Satan. Satan was uprooted because good people fought him. Things are getting better, not worse, in America. 200 years ago, a quarter of the people were in chains. Today, very few are. This is immense progress. Most of the poverty we have is the result of that - the Blacks are a huge portion of the poor. Also because the system that had plantation owners and, before that, aristocrats is still very popuiar to the weak minded. The result is a favoritism in law and politics that has systematically - through law and restriction of markets in favor of the rich (because they control government) - to make them richer and richer. We got Social Security and Unemployment insurance in the first place because, for a moment in the 1930s, the rich lost control of the government. We also got equal rights out of that same movement, at its tail end. Then the rich closed their grip again, and have held it tightly, except during the crisis, when Free Market capitalism exploded and, rather than letting the whole system unravel, the government stepped in and bailed it out. This time, we got universal health insurance out of the loss of control by the rich. You've decided you're on their side, which is too bad, because the middle class benefit the most from poverty relief and social security, medicare, universal public education and the like. In your antipathy for the people below you - a viciously un-Christian mindset - you would unwind the system of social supports that allows the middle class to prosper without the fear that used to be. But you're going to be deaf to all of it and side with the rich. If you ever got your way, they would lord it over you, impoverish you, and use your poverty as the basis by which they could control you. That's the way the wealthy aristocracy has always done it, here too, and they'd like to get back to it too. Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Universal Public Education, Workers Comp, Medicare, Medicaid and now Obamacare are all a rather massive wrench in the works for that. You want them gone. But you're not going to prevail.
You don't have my heart. You have judged unrighteous judgement. CHarity is individual not group foreced by the government. That is theft and the opposite of charity. Charity comes from the free will.
There is only one reace the human race. Wrong again.
The tithe was the charity under God's law. It was not voluntary. It went to the official administrators, and they distributed it. Charity under God's principles comes from both individuals and from government. From Sinai onward.
I have and had nothing to do with any of what you mentioned. Frankly you're full of it on this one.
Yes materially we are better off. Spiritually and morally we have sunk quite a bit. Some would say slouching towardes Gomorah.
Social Security is communism. It is not Christian and is found no where in the Bible.
You don't know where I am economically. So you are basically lying here and makin stuff up.
I'm for freedom and liberty for all If somkeone works harder and makes more good for them. If someone is lazy and ends up poor. Shame on them. If you can help someone out who is down on their luck. Good for you and them. If the government takes from young peopleto much so they can't support themselves to give to deadbeats. Like you support. Then to hell with that. That is slavery which you supposedly don't agree with. Unless it is productive people having their stuff stolen in the name of giving it to help the poor. Most of the poor in the Unitede States are poor because they are lazy and make bad decisions. I've made bad decisions. I could have been doing better if aI made better decisions. If I saved more money instead of spent it. Didnj't buy this thing and saved it. We are responsible for ourselves. God made us to take care of ourselves. If the birds can take care of themselves then most peole should be able to also. Instead of 30 percnnt or more on food stamps. You have welding glasses on all the time.
It was 10 percent. Not 50 plus percent. Show me where it says the rich should pay a 50 plus percent tithe. It doesn't. Your communist tendencies are the opposite of what Gods vision for the individual is.
If you consider your taxes to the government a tithe. You are really confused. Also if you consider your taxes a tithe. Wouldn't that make the government your god? Wouldn't that mean your "tithes" go for abortion.
After all that. i will say I think you have a good heart. Just a wrong on. Peace.
You're such a depressing soul.
Well we are Fred. If it happens in our lifetime or not. Life is short. So it is really closer then any of us really realize.
First these numbers are dubious. There is a lot of propaganda in them. Second capitalism killed millions just in Belgian Kongo, and wiped out entire peoples like Tasmanians. Third, political systems are to serve people. People need food, safety, happiness and ability to have families and communities. If feudalism serves them better they should have feudalism, if democracy or dictatorship, they should have what they need. If the rich grab too much and made lives of the rest unbearable (the key symptom is if they start to die out by having negative reproduction rate and get into peonage of unsustainable debt, time might be ripe for a radical change. To hell with ideological hypocritical bullshit. Human beings are the highest value (after God) not the greed of the few psychos and their sycophants.
Your religion is in the Bible. You are a worshiper of Golden Calf and Mammon.
Yeah, hard working GWB and Paris Hilton.
You stated a myth. The USA was able to avoid a social safety net for so long for 2 reasons: A) Land was free and abundant. After the Indians were gone, any man could pack his bags and move west and farmstead for a living if he could not get a job or keep one. B) Once all that free land was gone, industrialization of the USA allowed men to have a job even if low paying until the Great Depression ended that scheme. Without a high demand for employment and no free land anymore a man needs a safety net - not to live like a king but to keep him going till the economy picks up. He need not sit home - it could be make work programs like the Hoover Dam. That is reality. Trust in the economics of the Bible. Did not Joseph initiate a social safety net funded by the good times of harvest to save men during famine? Genesis 41
So you are saying since homestead act was ended and people could not get land for free it caused Industrial Age which meant man was a slave to big business and that's why we need a safety net?
No. I am saying that there were alternatives when the economy tanked or men lost jobs, etc. The safety net was free land that you could live on and grow a crop or raise animals on. I know it is the American myth that the USA will always provide a good life and jobs for all but that era is gone as we get outsourcing and automation.
You could get free land up until 1986. That kinda puts a big hole in you therory. Almost every recession was a direct result of crony capitalism or as we know it government interference into the markets at the behalf of a donor. Government will always be the citizens worst enemy.
That you can farm and live off of? Please - you are just looking for reasons to hold up your failed ideology.
Also, in the 19th Century, almost everybody came from a farm. When things got bad in the city, they could go back to the farm and work, and there they would find shelter, food and family. They would eat and could start anew. In the 20th Century, industrialization concentrated people in cities in a new way: generations were born there. There was no family farm to go back to. A family farm as a bingo point to rally at in disaster meant no starvation, at least, in depressions of the past. But urbanization means that there is no family farm still out there. And it means that most people are renters, prone to swift homelessness when they become jobless. People are much poorer and less secure once they concentrate in cities. They just FEEL richer, in normal times, because life is more comfortable and there is more to do. But in cities, homelessness and hunger are right behind joblessness, and the joblessness moves in cycles beyond any individual's control. Back on the farm, there was never joblessness, and you could always get food. Urbanization deprived most people of the secure capital base of a farm that really was the ancient social safety net. That's all gone now, and urbanized people need something to replace it. That something has to ultimately come from government, because it is too vast for the churches to handle even in their heyday (which today is no longer).
The first thing industrialization capitalism did was end the town commons and force millions out of the rural lands into the cities so they could supply the factories. And they did not with the help of the free market (which is different from capitalism) but with the help of armed gendarmes who forced people off their ancestral lands in Europe - see the Enclosure Acts for example. In the USA this did not happen because land was plentiful. You had enough workers to man factories and to start family farmsteads. Now, many if not most are renters. Your life's well being is based on having a job as an employee. With outsourcing and automation jobs will become fewer and lower paying. The stuff I am reading about automation is amazing - jobs you think will be for humans and never for robots are fast approaching an event horizon. Taxi drivers, fast food clerks and cooks, truck drivers, bus drivers, train conductors, airplane pilots will all be automated in our lifetime.
Americans Are More Willing to Vote for Socialists
#2. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
#3. To: GrandIsland (#1)
Just look how many so called "conservatives" post here, and hate the rich, love drugs and remain silent towards social service type government growth.
#4. To: Vicomte13, GrandIsland, Justified, A Pole (#3)
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
To be clear, Catholics do not hate the rich. We just see that the rich need to be prevented from accumulating excessive wealth
#6. To: GrandIsland (#5)
That's fuckin socialism or income redistribution, my holy buddy.
#7. To: Pericles, Vicomte13, GrandIsland, A Pole (#4)
#8. To: Justified (#7)
The middle class is where government should focus its policies. Do not worry about the rich and poor because they live in their own world. Rich focus on the dollar and the poor just will not sacrifice in the right areas. Please do not respond that some have fallen on hard times for no luck of their own. These people can be helped through churches and charities. They also do not amount to drop in the river.
#9. To: GrandIsland (#8)
#10. To: Justified (#7)
#11. To: Vicomte13, Justified (#10)
But because I really am right, over time things drift in my direction. Your side loses and loses and loses, sort of like the Indians. Social security and unemployment insurance, universal public education and now, universal health insurance, are here to stay. The programs would be better than they are if people on the conservative right lent a hand to organize them better, make them more sensible, but you won't. You're still resisting the CONCEPT of Social Security, on principle.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#11)
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
No, Stone, you and your side are wrong, because you have no Christian charity or pity in your heart
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
and because you have a very, very strong sense of racial difference,.
#15. To: A K A Stone (#13)
CHarity is individual not group foreced by the government. That is theft and the opposite of charity. Charity comes from the free will.
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
You insist on adding onto it all of the evil crap that has been the feature of American culture: a particularly pernicious form of black slavery and segregation, that endured into our own lifetimes, because Americans were bigots. There was no Christian principle behind it. It was Satan. Satan was uprooted because good people fought him.
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
Things are getting better, not worse, in America. 200 years ago, a quarter of the people were in chains. Today, very few are. This is immense progress.
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
We got Social Security and Unemployment insurance in the first place because, for a moment in the 1930s, the rich lost control of the government. We also got equal rights out of that same movement, at its tail end.
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
In your antipathy for the people below you - a viciously un-Christian mindset - you would unwind the system of social supports that allows the middle class to prosper without the fear that used to be.
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
But you're going to be deaf to all of it and side with the rich.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
The tithe was the charity under God's law. It was not voluntary. It went to the official administrators, and they distributed it. Charity under God's principles comes from both individuals and from government. From Sinai onward.
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
The tithe was the charity under God's law. It was not voluntary. It went to the official administrators, and they distributed it. Charity under God's principles comes from both individuals and from government. From Sinai onward.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
#24. To: A K A Stone (#11)
So things are getting worse and worse. We are racing towards the mark of the Beast and Armageddon.
#25. To: Fred Mertz (#24)
You're such a depressing soul.
#26. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
CARLSON: It just says a lot, I mean socialists, in the name of socialism, 80 million people were murdered last century. It wasn’t that long ago, we both remember, we’re not that old.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Social Security is communism. It is not Christian and is found no where in the Bible.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#20)
If someone is lazy and ends up poor. Shame on them.
#29. To: Justified, Vicomte13, GrandIsland, A Pole (#7)
When people talk about social net just remember almost every hard time can be traced right back to government interference into the daily lives of the people. Thats one of the major reasons government should be as small as possible!
#30. To: Pericles (#29)
#31. To: Justified (#30)
#32. To: Pericles (#31)
#33. To: Justified (#32)
You could get free land up until 1986. That kinda puts a big hole in you therory.
#34. To: Pericles (#31)
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#34)
Urbanization deprived most people of the secure capital base of a farm that really was the ancient social safety net. That's all gone now, and urbanized people need something to replace it. That something has to ultimately come from government, because it is too vast for the churches to handle even in their heyday (which today is no longer).
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]