Recent polls show steady growth in support for socialism among Democrats. A new CBS poll shows how popular it is, with 58 percent holding a positive view of socialism—26 points more than the 32 percent with a positive view of capitalism. This may explain why House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, while rejecting core parts of its platform, embraced Democratic Socialists this week as part of the Democratic Party. In addition to a variety of anti-Semitic figures within its ranks, the DSA wants to get rid of the presidency, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and other institutions (as well as borders, immigration enforcement, and much of private property). Yet, Jeffries still believes they share values and wants them to be part of the Democratic party. In other words, there are many “fine people” in the DSA despite being committed to the destruction of our core institutions.
The poll also found that 24 percent of Democrats have “no opinion” of socialism, while 18 percent have no opinion regarding capitalism.
Other polling shows similar results. An Economist/YouGov survey recently found that 62 percent of Democrats said they would vote for a “Democratic Socialist” candidate.
At the same time, Democratic Socialists have been spinning fables about the Framers not opposing those who acquire too much wealth. They also repeat the mythology that socialism has worked in other countries. It destroyed the economies in France and Great Britain.
Nevertheless, British prime minister, Andy Burnham declared that he wants to restore the policies of 40 years ago, before the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher.
In his own version of promising the “warmth of collectivism,” Burnham declared, “The country surrendered control of the essentials — housing, water, energy, transport — and left people exposed to higher costs.”
Burnham’s account leaves out that the supposed golden age under Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan, which he was referencing, led in 1977 to the so-called “winter of discontent.” Those policies destroyed the British economy, and the nation was faced with the humiliation of being rescued by the International Monetary Fund as if it were some banana republic.
Ultimately, capitalist policies were restored by Margaret Thatcher and the economy rebounded.
In “Rage and the Republic,” I discuss the economic philosophy of the Founders in exploring the history and future of this unique Republic.
Notably, this is also the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Smith’s free-market theory was an instant hit with the founding generation. These men had just created the first major Enlightenment Revolution based on a belief in natural rights that came from God, not governments.
Yet, they knew that true individual liberty could not be achieved without economic freedom. Smith’s economic theory was the perfect companion for their political theory. Rage and the Republic discusses the rise of socialism in the United States and around the world. It calls for a recommitment to what I call a “liberty-enhancing economy.”
The Democratic leaders from Harris to Buttigieg to Newsom believe that they can ride this rage wave into power by offering up core American institutions. They wrongly believe that the mob will destroy their enemies, but not themselves. History has proven them wrong time and time again.
This election is shaping up to be arguably the most important in our history as we fight for the identity of this Republic on its 250th anniversary. We have come face to face with Benjamin Franklin’s warning that this is a Republic if we can keep it.
Correction, 60% of democrats are products of our media/education industry and have been essentially indoctrinated into this perception and have not developed an ability to think for themselves or cogently evaluate an ideology. They are the bots of progressive ideology and I doubt we have the time, the will, nor the manpower to eradicate decades of brainwashing.
That allegation of the “brainwashing” of Democrats is rich, considering how many Republicans are willing to put 100% faith in, and to vest 100% power in a single leader, whom they believe to be incapable of ever being wrong. At present, there is a much greater variety of political opinion in the Democratic party than in the Republican party. You simply can’t accept the proposition that people who think for themselves could come to adopt different ideologies from your own.
These marxists are a grave threat to our nation’s existence! They need to be arrested & tried for crimes under the Communist Control Act!
Marxists? You mean all 13 of them?
I really hope you’re no relation to Frank.
It’s partially still in effect, too. I’m not being snide, I am being serious when I ask where is HUAC when we need them.
I’ve been saying that Taul Gunner Joe was the worst messenger fir our most important message. He was stopped/censored by the exact same cabal running the prog/left dem party; the mefia/education industry that was desperate to protect the communists hiding amongst them.
The Communist Control Act has largely been declared unconstitutional, but even if it were resurrected, it only applies to membership in the Communist Party. Democratic Socialism is a Constitutionally protected political ideology.
Any Republican who supports farm subsidies should also have a favorable view.
I am all for ending farm subsidies.
You will be paying me, $25 for a pound of bacon. $20 for a gallon of milk. $15 for a loaf of bread.
Lets do it!
Sez a self called farmer who isn’t a farmer but an illiterate big mouth on blog posting 24/7/365.
it is so sad that all that you have as ammunition for your big mouth (keyboard) are smarmy invectives of no value. You should try reading a few books concerning history, economics and those concerning the development of a moral core.
Yet, I know how to spell “says.” You, your higher-education is showing.
How many times did I post yesterday?
By filtering it through the government, if that is the price you claim, the cost to the buyer is significantly more.
Most of the subsidies are going to large corporations which turn them into profit and dividends to share holders.
I doubt that people will pay those prices. We’ll import more food from Mexico.
RE the reported CBS Poll –
It would be quite informative for me to be given:
– a list of all polling questions;
– the sample size;
– how the data was gathered;
– and age ranges of the poll participants.
Now that would be giving away the secrets to the wizardry, and even Houdini wouldn’t do that.
Such are the consequences of th manifestation of the soft bigotry of low expectations for the intelligence of the low information voter. That’s a 60 percent who have yet to learn exactly how much self-directed choice they will turn over to ‘Big Brother’ in exchange for the price of a gallon of gasoline. “Big Brother’ will never want for it.
Does everyone realize the results to a question relate to how it’s framed?
Me? I’m less concerned with a click-bait title, and rather more concerned the average Joe isn’t paid enough to live. If you’re old enough to have perspective, reflect how television depicts life in the USA, and importantly, how it’s evolved . . .
Ward and June Cleaver in the late 50s early 60s
Martin and Natalie in The Patty Duke Show in the mid-60s
William Frawley and William O’Casey in My Three Sons early 60s through early 70s
Sherman and Isabel in The Jeffersons mid 70s through mid 80s
Archie Bunker and Edith in the late 70s early 80s
Al and Peggy Bundy late 80s through most of the 90s
. . . and over 5 decades, their lives weren’t viewed an anomaly. While presenting a comedic looks at real American families – yet in 100% of these – the man worked as the breadwinner. The wife stayed at home (grandfather for widowed William in My Three Sons).
Interestingly, it wasn’t until the 90s that the wife was presented as lazy for not working. She’s depicted as shallow and indulgent; more concerned with her nails than caring for her husband. This show reflected a new, developing, set of mores. In the real world in which I lived, it took two salaries to make it. However through four of these five decades, these families led ‘middle class’ lives, e.g. a new car every few years, a home, and all on one salary. And nowhere was homelessness anything but a bum with a bindlestick hoping a train.
Look, don’t burn me at the stake for bringing this up, but what’s changed? Well, tax laws, for one. Regulations on corporations, treaties like NAFTA fomented by said corporations, the remuneration of the C-suite as a % of worker pay, the treatment of political contributions, and I could go on . . . but basically, it’s who gets what share of the pie. And in the language of some, the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie, and who owns the means of production.
Quite honestly, any objective look is quite conclusive; the American blue collar worker has been systematically screwed out of his life. Towns have been left shuttered husks. This, if what remains is not a concrete slab as the whole plant was uprooted and entire businesses moved overseas in search of cheaper labor.
And at the same time, anti-union press and politics means most workers forms of resistance have been, if not broken, greatly diminished in scope and power. In short, the American dream has become hopium for many. Proof? The number of unemployed men has done nothing but increase. Family sizes decrease as many give up on finding a job to hold at less than menial wages means no chance of kids having a better life. Not on a one-by-one basis but whole swathes of American men have collectively decided it’s no life for a proud American.
Me? I’ve voted Republican consistently since President Reagan defeated President Carter with my help. Today I wonder at the wisdom of this, but now firmly on the downslope of life, it’s too late to fret about what could have been had I had the perspective of today. This, after a lifetime of nose to the grindstone has paid off and resulted in the proverbial life well lived.
Yet there’s a certain disquiet as I watch my daughter, and millions of her cohort moving back home, some not finding jobs, others (not many) working, but not getting 40 hours as that trips corporate responsibilities regarding health care and pensions that 29-hour employees don’t ‘deserve’. And these yet, these companies (many reporting billions in profit) are paying wages that leave employees struggling financially and turning to the government dole to get by.
So bringing this back around to where it started, if socialism rises its ugly head, whom do we blame for unfettered greed with no government or social brake to the ‘more, more, more’ crowd. Those thousand Americans for whom no amount of money is enough. Ones who sail the seas on $100M yachts, and poses the economic might of titans with the unharnessed power to buy the souls of politicians, editors, and lawyers to continue having their way. As for the little guy? Too bad.
This brings us around to how was the question framed, that reflects 60% have come to believe Socialism is a good thing? Could it instead be measuring despair?
—
Respectively,
jbeech
Geriatric screed.
You’re wrong. You show no respect for your elders.
You have provided much food for thought. Thank you
“Could it instead be measuring despair?”
No. It measures a generation of spoiled brats who feel that others have a duty to satisfy their needs — via government forced redistribution. You want something? Earn it. Stop using your needs as a claim on the life, work, and money of others.
Your envy-driven, class warfare language (“Those thousand Americans for whom . . .”) should be on a poster for the socialist party.
BTW, where do you think your “little guy” would be without the productive rich? Try looking at the miserable life of that “little guy” in 19th century America, before our industrial giants lifted him up and created the middle class. Or try looking at Cuba today.
“No. It measures a generation of spoiled brats who feel that others have a duty to satisfy their need “
Sam, your tone is blunt and insulting. If everyone were just as blunt and insulting, maybe the brats would grow up.
Will anybody with influence ever make the case that universal suffrage is every bit the failed experiment as socialism and communism are? $40 TRILLION in debt is not enough to make the case against universal suffrage? Instead, we’re going to complete the job of destroying the country by voting in a bunch of envious, economically illiterate socialist hacks?
Chileans voted for the socialist demagogue Allende in ’73. Pinochet then seized control to prevent the country’s destruction. I don’t know if we have our own version of Pinochet on deck, but some people may prefer one over a “democratically elected” socialist whose stated goals are to destroy the Supreme Court, Senate, etc.
The debt is largely the result of cutting taxes, not increases in spending. And some of the changes are to recognize that the health care industry siphons 40-60% of the spending into profits, not the provision of services. By setting up universal health care coverage, that 40-60% burden on workers is eliminated, potentially increasing pay without any burden on the employers. It also means that people aren’t allowing conditions to get bad enough to justify a trip to the ER because they cannot afford a visit to a physician.
Every and i mean every cut of federal income tax all the way back to the Kennedey admin has resulted in INCREASED fed revenue.
I think we are learning that a huge chunk of that debt is due to fraud and graft. And virtually all of it on the Democrat side and their adherants.
Hardly a surprise in the Democratic Party. There has been a push for Socialism in the US since the 19th century. Eugene V. Debs ran for president 5 times as a member of the Socialist Party. A great deal of FDR’s new deal had socialist underpinnings but was not called Socialism. He led the greatest expansion of government programs and power after being elected. He ran afoul of the Supreme Court who struck down many programs, hence his drive to pack the SCOTUS. His programs were supposedly to get the country out of the Great Depression but were in fact a socialist plan with price controls and elimination of market competition as “wasteful”. He failed and he still had unemployment rates of 18-20 % just prior to WW2. WW2 saved his administration when he back tracked and turned to the Market economy to build the war machine, feed Britain, and ship massive aid to Russia and the rest of the Allies. Britain needed help but they still outproduced much of German Industry with their own version of a Market Economy. Truman tried to nationalize the railroads. Socialism has never lost it’s appeal in the Democratic Party.
Look at Obama and Biden policies with massive govt expansion under Obama with the weakest recovery post recession despite huge spending, and then Biden’s spending push us into Inflation.
It’s always there, the Utopia that never delivers.
As you said Utopia never delivers, look at the sad state of the American economy under Trump, the nationwide spread of hate, endless wars… and you think capitalism is a success? Then why do Americans want socialism?
The “. . . sad state of the American economy,” did not happen under Trump.
It started before Trump was even born, likely with FDRs socialism policies.
Not under Trump? He’s the President. It stated before him? Whew, if only you knew how stooped you sound.
I am six foot, 1 inch. How can I sound “stooped?”
Is that is what is passing for higher-indoctrination these days?
“Almost 60% of democrats have a favorable view of socialism”, let’s see how favorable they are once they’re forced to live the life of a socialist? It’s not something you turn on and off if it’s not what you thought it was. If it were a perfect world the 60% would all have to pick a “socialist” nation like N Korea, Cuba, Venezuela or Russia to live in for 3 years. There’s no such thing as a Democrat Socialist of America that’s a marketing label, how favorable would they be viewed if they were called Marxist Communist, which is who they are?
Communist countries love to call themselves “Democratic” People’s Republic etc. There is nothing truly democratic about the DSA.
Democrats’ dress their raw greedy and hatred up on their “socialism” which is little more than fascism!
Raw and greedy? And Trump and his corporate cronies are not?
Not nearly as greedy as Walz, Harris, Hochul and the fraud of the Somalis and other D Party allies who have defrauded us of billions.
let me guess retired 56 year old public union with $100k+ pensions?
The Democrat Party HATES America….they LOVE Slavery….they LOVE failure. The worse Democrats make it…the MORE money they shower on those Failures
End Federal Aid…and watch NYC crumble. Reminder 1000’s of jews VOTED for Hitler! Leftists are ALWAYS wrong!
Even the “socialism” of scandinavia…is just resposible capitalism. I invite ALL leftist…move to Cuba…then get back to us in a month?
Gawd, you sure know how to sound like a crazy.
Capitalism needs a better publicist. For one, the term “free enterprise” is more accurate, but awkward. I’m a free enterpriser.
I don’t think “free enterprise” is awkward at all. The Left will have a hardertime making that into a pejorative than they did to “capitalism”.
Free enterprise leaves too much of its definition to the person using the phrase. Maybe something like ‘private enterprise, freely exercised’ is more accurate. Not sure where I first heard the description, but it seems appropriate. Still a little awkward though.
-g
The number of people who believe when they are told they are oppressed and have no chance to succeed must be equal to the number who believe socialism is the answer. Our education system is an utter failure. IF capitalism and the US Constitution survive this election, public education must be the first to be overthrown!
So what is the “number of people” who believe in socialism? Ballpark it please?
As for that failed education system, who is responsible for that? Name names please.
Do you think there is a difference between those who “like” socialism and those who “believe” in socialism. Whatabout conservatives?
Ed is the constitutional responsibility of each state
The ignorant idiots don’t know socialism is a death cult.
Estimates of deaths under socialist regimes range from about 80 million to over 94 million, according to academic compilations and subsequent research.
How many people where executed, died in prison camps or starved to death in the United Soviet “SOCIALIST” Republic?
Estimates of deaths under Joseph Stalin’s regime in the Soviet Union vary widely, but official records indicate around 799,455 executions from 1921 to 1953, with approximately 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag system. Additionally, millions more died from famine and harsh conditions, with some estimates suggesting total deaths could be as high as 61 million due to various repressive policies.
China is generally regarded as a socialist country, the system is often referred to as “socialism with Chinese characteristics,”
Great Leap Forward (1958-1962) 15-45 million A campaign aimed at rapidly transforming China into a socialist society, which resulted in widespread famine.
Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) 1.5-2 million A sociopolitical movement that led to persecution, violence, and social upheaval.
Conclusion
North Korea is officially described as a socialist state.
The exact number of deaths in North Korea is difficult to determine, but estimates suggest that millions have died due to famine, political purges, and human rights abuses since the establishment of the state.
Well at least socialism will cull most of these ignorant fools.
“The ignorant idiots don’t know socialism is a death cult.”…. and you’ve lived and in a socialist or communist society and know first hand it foibles?
You know nothing about socialism except what some manic MAGAot tells you.
When given a list of socialism’s crimes against humanity the idiot replies with an ad hominem attack. Anonymous is living proof that our young people are uneducated, ignorant, smug, arrogant and undebatable. When they say 2+2=5 what can we do?
Thanks for the remark, you are living proof that old people are stupid and ignorant.
To repeat, you and the local idiots can’t descend the differences between communism and socialism.
One could say that you’re living proof the US education system is a failure.
Are you seriously implying that because of your age you are smarter and wiser than that anon you keep attacking? I’ve never seen a comemnt from you that showed smarts or wisdom, just ignorant pugnaciousness.
HullBobby,
What do you expect from a Gen Z, failure to launch?
Recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows males, 16-24 years of age, job participation rate fell to 56.1%. They would rather live at home with mommy and daddy, rely on them for paying their bills, be on the internet with their hate and rage for anyone successful. And by anyone successful, that is pretty much everyone else. They look at you and GEB who have had long, successful lives, making real contributions to society, knowing they will never amount to much.
That is why so many have a favorable view of socialism. They want everyone else to do the work while they sit and do nothing and get paid/benefits for it.
Talk about failure to launch, two unknown and pathetic geriatrics with no life successes want to lecture people about how wise they are. You live in a trailer, alone, in upstate NY and you call that success?
Oh, poor annony! Cannot understand how successful we are so has to lash out and make up things about us!
I am so successful, I am in a position that I am going to go to college! That is right! But, not a four year indoctrination camp. Just a two year degree, with a concentration on a specific subject and none of the useless DEI, GER crap.
Name a place where Socialism has been effective at ANYTHING other than making everyone equally miserable and killing vast numbers of people. Im waiting.
Name a place where Conservatism has been effective at EVERYTHING and not making making everyone equally miserable and killing vast numbers of people.
BTW, its spelt “I’m”, as in I’m waiting.
You think tossing out death stats proves socialism is bad. BTW, China and the SU were/are COMMUNIST.
As is typical of the MAGAots, you can’t discern between socialism and communism.
No Communism has never been reached by any major society. All the so called communist societies were or are stuck in the socialist step of Marx’s dialectical materialism. Try again.
Major societies? Does china and the Soviet Union count? Dialectical materialism huh? Sure pal, whatever you say.
Don’t forget Cambodia. And Cuba.
The only place where a socialist government provided the warmth of collectivism was in Chernobyl, Ukraine, in April of 1986.
Utopianism is one root of the problem, particularly for younger Democrats. Socialism promises utopia – with free buses, health care, daycare, and even housing. It is the happy ending to a complex story, almost identical to the bedtime stories they listened to not many years ago. For the older Democratic set, socialism rekindles those utopian feelings from long ago, when they drifted toward the Democratic Party years earlier.
Democrats have always been long on promises and correspondingly short on promises kept. But the happy endings of children’s fairy tales still figure into their thinking.
Have you actually EVER spoken with “younger Democrats”? Didn’t think so.
As for those “promises”, you intentionally omit the fact that Trump is a pathological BS-er.
You’re as bad a George and his heaps of garbage.
Be honest for once in your miserable life.
As for those “promises”, you intentionally omit the fact that Obama and Biden were both pathological BS-ers.
Yes Obummer and O’Biden where terrible truth tellers. You seem very mixed up on your BS’ers.
You realize that anon 658 didn’t start the thread. simply responding to GDON. You, are a complete idiot thinking you had a nifty response to anons obviously factual response. SF.
You should have asked gdonald why he didn’t include that tidbit of stupidity?
I wish I were surprised. There really are no ‘moderate’ dems, and the fact that the lie about it with such impunity is gross. That this doesn’t seem to faze their constituency is tragic. That so many are so ignorant regarding socialism or communism is likely by design.
It will take a great deal more than four years to course correct, and one shift in an election would likely be the last with all that would ensue – this is stated openly by the modern left. Even one of the dsa candidates heading to Washington would be utter chaos – what we’ve seen only in microcosm would be center stage and make the Biden years seem tame. Vote very consciously in November.
Typo in email address
Okay – the Public School System in America achieved its goal – STUPIDITY AMONG THE MASSES THAT PERMEATS FROM THE YOUNG UP THROUGH THE GENERATIONS. Bravo Teachers Unions!!!!
Its goal? You got proof of that , or just making up nonsense as you go along with this pack of dimwitted geriatrics?
Teachers unions don’t set the curriculum. That is done by the state government. Same with setting grading requirements. On a smaller scale school boards can intervene – because state governments cut funding if students are failing classes (like cutting chemo if the cancer starts to spread) school boards pressure teachers to give passing grades to failing students. The final step is parents who don’t care to be involved in their children’s education and, if they are not passing, complain to the school board rather than looking at the child’s tests and homework results.
Doesn’t it figure. I’m guessing they don’t have a job. Or care to even look for one.
Oh dustoff, you have no fooking idea how the rest of the country lives.
Neither do you.
And you do?
DustOff,
Correct. Male Gen Zers are dropping out of the US job market in droves
” the share of men aged 16 to 24 participating in the labor market dipped to 56.1% – tumbling nearly 13 percentage points from 69% in 2000, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”
https://nypost.com/2026/08/17/business/male-gen-zers-are-dropping-out-of-the-us-job-market-in-droves/
Pasty white, soy boys, living at home, dependent on their parents for nearly everything. No wonder they are not reproducing. No respectable woman would want to be with these over grown men-children.
Makes sense why they are so small and angry at everyone else. We are successful. When we were their age, we had jobs, we had homes, we had wives or girlfriends, we had friends in the real world.
NY Post is your source huh? Dropped out of the job market huh? Ever hear of entrepreneurs? They aren’t counted in the “labor market”. Check incorporations by state.
As for being angry at everyone else, you and dustoff show a lot of contempt towards young people. Real and imagined. And anon commenters. Like yourselves.
Oh, no. Annony’s reading comprehension skills are failing annony again. The source of the data is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It just so happens it is the NYP who was covering it. Is MSM covering it?
Contempt towards young people? Of course not! Again, your higher-education is failing you. My children are “young people.” But they are also successful, young people with good paying jobs, careers, homes, financially secure and do not have to depend on us for anything.
Now, those young failures to launch, who do not even try, ever so dependent on their parents for nearly everything, well, who would not have contempt for them?
“Pasty white, soy boys, living at home” are the children of conservatives.
They would have gotten factory jobs – but the factories have closed. They would have worked retail – but Amazon and Walmart have caused those segments to collapse. There was a sliver of restaurant jobs – but rising costs have cause many restaurants to close. They would work construction, but there is a glut of office space and a slowdown in the building of typical residential homes.
Thanks Trump for making it better for companies to build factories overseas and then driving up costs by imposing tariffs and then giving the proceeds to the corporations rather than the consumers who paid those tariff costs.
When you were their age those factories were open, retail was booming, residential homes could be purchased with one income, and people went to restaurants to further enjoy their lives. After the big financial institutions got bailed out in 2007 and 2008, but the individual citizens did not, all of that joy went away.
No wonder they are angry. The billionaires gutted the economy and now reap tax breaks while Turley helps the billionaires to convince the middle and lower class to become minions to the oligarchs.
Ho hum, same ole same from Turley.
What else would you expect? He’s one of the minority of sane Democrats, who knows the facts and understands history, and the significance of what it means to ignore the past and thus be doomed to repeat it — as are all the foolish, foolhardy and ignorant Socialists in this country. They ought be careful what they wish for.
Turley hasn’t supported the Democratic Party for decades.
“. . . .same ole same from Turley.” If you posted logical arguments (for or against), other members of this blog might give you some positive credit versus lambasting the posts from others.
So where are your ” logical arguments (for or against)”? Obviously you are a stupid commenter, eg. “positive credit”? Folks, here again another example of a failure of the US educational system.
Positive credit? What about negative credit?
Bam!
hey phantom…. let me know a left wing news or poster who doesn’t censor?
There is NO ONE more hate filled than a Democrat!
Judging from the vehemence of your comment, dislike of democrats, could one say that you are “hate fileld”?
Bam!
Oh! No! Nothing worse then someone who is, “hate fileld”!
Man, that higher-indoctrination is something is it not?
Yes factual and on point. You have to respect and love the guy, he brings the truth to liberal trolls everyday, and they can’t stand that, as shown by their stupid comments.
In Illinois, Turely served as a House leadership page in 1977 and 1978 under the sponsorship of Illinois Democrat Sidney Yates.
Jonathan Turley began his career with a background as a liberal Democrat.
Jonathan Turley is often described as moving from mainstream Democratic/legal-liberal circles into a more conservative-leaning public persona, but the core of what’s attributed to him is actually his constitutional interpretation—especially around issues where many far left liberals disagree with the traditional progressive/legal approach (e.g., how the Constitution should be read, how federal power should be constrained, and how certain institutions should be judged).
In other words he is still a liberal, just not an insane one. Suck it liberal fools.
That one hit the X ring. Good shot.
I am beginning to wonder if Turley will ever drop his affiliation with the Dems. The party has been evolving for decades always moving leftward towards socialism. It is not the party he grew up with. The purge of the moderates began long ago. They retained the liberal label as their policies were crafted to accrue power rather than the public’s best interest. Their new definition of liberalism is no longer about individual liberty and rights but freedom from the constraints imposed by the Constitution, its amendments, and the Bill of Rights. They have steadily eroded the foundational elements of our founding principles. How long has it been since the Dems started advocating for a “living constitution” that would no longer bind them to a government of, by, and for the people. In recent years they have openly stated their intention to pack SCOTUS as a prerequisite to establishing a permanent one party rule. After that, creating new states of DC and Puerto Rico to pack the Senate with 4 new reliably Dem seats. They have quite successfully divided us through their strategy of creating new grievance groups using identity as a political weapon. They openly advocate and practice censorship of opposition viewpoints. Turley is a liberal of the classical definition but the party affiliation he continues to hold on to is long gone and will never return.
Why would Turley drop the association? By keeping the veil of the Democratic Party covering him, it lends the illusion that he is not a hard core conservative, the sort that supported slavery in the South because it was lawful. Being lawful is Turley’s main guide; not what is moral or what is the right thing to do, but a concentration on finding a legal basis to do the most awful things.
Most of those claims are pure right-wing propaganda. I don’t know where people get delusions like “Their new definition of liberalism is no longer about individual liberty and rights but freedom from the constraints imposed by the Constitution…” Democratic Socialists aren’t at all opposed to the Constitution. Democrats couldn’t possibly divide the US without the cooperation of Republicans, who have made their opposition to equal rights for all clear since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That law was why segregationist Southern Democrats moved to the GOP. Partisans on both sides regularly attempt to censor views that they disapprove of: Just ask Florida teachers. It is true that support for socialism reached a high of around 40% in 2019 and has remained about the same since (I don’t know what questions were asked by pollsters to get the “almost 60%” that Turley claims.)
Turley may be a liberal but he certainly pens most of his works in support of far right conservatives.
What you call “far right conservatives,” the rest of us call sane and normal to include traditional, moderate Democrats.
Just ask Bill Maher.
No, what we call “far right conservatives” are those who believe that the 2020 election was rigged, who believe that Jan. 6th was a “setup,” who oppose diversity and pluralism, who want to end immigration by nonwhites, who want to end birthright citizenship, who want to enforce traditional or religious restrictions on personal behavior, who support ultranationalism, and other similar views.