• LeniX@lemmygrad.ml
    471·
    3 months ago

    The majority of Republikans are liberals too. In the classical sense of the word. Calling chuds “liberals” melts that place of theirs where the brain is usually supposed to be.

    • Justice@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      27·
      3 months ago

      I call them liberals so much and so instinctively at this point that I legitimately get confused when they get all pissy. We should keep forcing it into common American understanding though.

      The term “conservative” as it’s popularly used 1) kinda means nothing (which is perfect for them) so 2) is an ever changing term.

      A conservative in 1970 US politics vs now are very different in their approach and thinking… obviously some stuff remains unchanged, but in the 1960s/70s you could still just be like a Strom Thurmond KKK guy openly denouncing integration and rights for black people while serving in the senate until you’re 100 goddamn years old… literally. Richard Nixon signed the EPA into law which today would be off the table even for Obama, I imagine. It would never get to his desk whatever his personal philosophy would be.

      So their ideas and way of speaking changes since their only true ideology is something boiled down to “support ‘free markets’” or allow capitalists to exploit labor maximumly and use any wedge issues which are beneficial along the way such as racism, abortion, etc. Maintain US hegemonic dominance around the world through soft and hard power, as required, in service to capital.

      On the other hand, ask a hardcore fascist/Nazi or even KKK guy their thoughts in 1960 or today and it’s “we want a separate nation only available for white people…” blah blah blah, all the shit. Their ideology remains the same as always. They believe in racial supremacy of white people, however they break that down, and they want a “pure land” for their chosen race. The more politically savvy ones will swap words around for plausible deniability, but the core ideology is basically the same in the end. They hate communists, they hate non-whites, especially being forced to live around and respect them as humans, they blame all societal ills on non-white minorities and/or non-cis, straight minorities. Same old tale.

      On the left, if you filter out the liberals LARPing (gotta similarly filter the more libbed up conservatives from their Nazi compatriots as well), you’ll hear the same arguments that communist-types have had since the 1960s, since the 1920s, and further back. Because it’s rooted in an ideology, so specific arguments of the time period change maybe, wording might change, but fundamentals like labor being the source of all value and thus capitalists having no right to the value created by others… remains core and unchanged.

      [this isn’t a “give it to the Nazis for ideological purity” argument, btw, to the liberals in my walls. It’s about political terminology and ties to strongly held ideology which American “liberals” and “conservatives” both share in common. Just about the only thing Nazis can ever coherently express is their hatred for non-white people. Beyond that, good fucking luck finding any sense in their statements and beliefs]

      • HexBroke [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        3·
        3 months ago

        Nixon didn’t have a choice around creating an EPA because the situation was so bad, and rejected the relevant commission’s recommendation.

        The agency was independent in the sense that it was placed outside the formal jurisdiction of any other agency, but unlike a truly independent agency, its administrator and assistant administrators were to serve at the President’s pleasure and formally report to the President through OMB.

        The agency’s pollution control jurisdiction was not combined with any of the federal government’s natural resource management authority, but neither was the pollution control dimension of that management authority surrendered to the new agency.

        For instance, the President did not transfer to EPA all of the Department of Agriculture’s jurisdiction over pesticide regulation. The Army Corps of Engineers also retained jurisdiction to regulate certain types of environmentally harmful activities occurring within the nation’s traditional navigable waters.

        In addition, at the same time that the President proposed the creation of EPA, he counterbalanced it with the creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) and National Industrial Pollution Control Council (“NIPCC”) within the Department of Commerce. Commerce’s pro-business perspective, the President believed, would minimize the chance of NOAA impeding economic activity within the coastal zone.

        NIPCC was made up of senior officials of major domestic corporations and trade associations and was designed to provide an authoritative source within the government on the adverse economic impact of pollution control. Working with OMB, NIPCC was intended to provide the President with an institutional mechanism for maintaining control over EPA.

        The average vote in favor of major federal environmental legislation during the 1970s was 77 to 5 in the Senate and 331 to 30 in the House.

        As one legislator put it in describing his reluctant vote in favor of safe drinking water legislation in 1974, “[a]fter all, if one votes against safe drinking water, it is like voting against home and mother.”

  • Inshallah@lemmygrad.ml
    17·
    3 months ago

    THIS kind of republican.

    26+6=1 tiocfaidh ár lá

    (I am more an INLA/IRSP man myself, the ML wing of the Irish Republican struggle. There is no denying the powerful impact of this picture however).