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: 1939
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 34.
#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 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.
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!
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.
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).
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#34)
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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAmericans Are More Willing to Vote for Socialists
#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)
#7. To: Pericles, Vicomte13, GrandIsland, A Pole (#4)
#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)
#34. To: Pericles (#31)
Replies to Comment # 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).
End Trace Mode for Comment # 34.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]