American Political Factions

[r3volution 3.0]

The goal here is to do a taxonomy of the different political grouping in the US.

I'll offer my preliminary thoughts, but I hope you'll join me, and together we can work out a more accurate picture.

Republican Party

1. Libertarians - e.g. Rand Paul
--non-interventionist
--laissez faire
--anti-police-state
--liberal social policies (except abortion, on which they're split)
--split on free trade and immigration

2. Neocons (aka national socialists) - e.g. Peter King
--extremely aggressive foreign policy
--socialistic economic policies
--extremely pro-police-state
--conservative social policy
--nationalists on free trade and immigration

3. Populist Conservatives (aka tea party) - e.g. Ted Cruz
--aggressive foreign policy
--conservative economic policies
--split on police state
--conservative social policy
--nationalists on free trade and immigration

4. Establishment Conservatives - e.g. Mitt Romney
--moderately aggressive foreign policy
--moderately conservative economic policies
--moderately pro-police-state
--mixed to moderately conservative social policy
--generally for free trade and free immigration

Democratic Party

1. Neoliberals (aka international socialists) - e.g. Hillary Clinton
--extremely aggressive foreign policy
--socialistic economic policies
--extremely pro-police-state
--cultural marxism
--economic protectionism but free immigration

2. Progressives - e.g. Elizabeth Warren
--less aggressive foreign policy
--socialistic economic policies
--moderately anti-police-state
--cultural marxism
--economic protectionism but free immigration

EDIT: notes in the margin...

Democrats - Neolibs 90%, Progressives 10%
--This is noteworthy because there's no visible group of voters in the Democratic Party who actually prefer more war and police state oppression, so why do the neolibs so utterly dominate the progressives? I would speculate that it's because the overwhelming majority of Democrats (~90%) care most about economic and/or social issues, and vote for the candidates who they think are most electable - which is always the neolib candidate, since they have the money behind them. Only the Democrats who care overwhelmingly about war and the police state (~10%) vote for the progressives in Democratic primaries. There's no indication this is going to change any time soon.

Republicans - Libertarians 15%, Pop-Cons 35%, Est-Cons 50%, Neocons ~0%
--The neocons have never really had their own candidates - they've always used behind the scenes maneuvering to influence other candidates. Prior to 2008, the libertarians were in the wilderness (and there were fewer of them than now), so they also had no visible role. So the primaries always ended up being a battle between the Pop-Cons and the Est-Cons. Now with the emergence of the libertarian faction, it's a three way race, and things are going to be interesting. There are three possible winning coalitions: libertarians and pop-cons, and libertarians and est-cons, and pop-cons and est-cons. But it is unlikely that the first or third coalitions are possible, because the social views of the pop-cons are simply unacceptable to the majority of libertarians and est-cons, not to mention the general electorate. The libertarians chance for victory lies in edging out the est-con candidate early on, so that it appears to be a two man race between a libertarian and a pop-con, which might prompt the est-cons to hold their nose and throw their support behind the lesser of two evils: the libertarian. In other words, if the choice were between Rand and Santorum, Romney voters would choose Rand. Basically, I predict that all future GOP primaries will result in a coalition between est-cons and libertarians, with pop-cons increasingly squeezed out - the only question is who heads these coalitions, the est-cons or the libertarians. The est-cons have the natural advantage in votes and money, but the libertarians have vastly better grassroots organization.

[kcchiefs6465]

Progressives are not less aggressive with regards to foreign policy. They simply hide their interventionism in nationalistic and humanitarian rhetoric.

Indeed, the founder of the progressive party was a war criminal and as well, the most notable progressives of the 20th Century were war mongering, busy bodies spreading the idea of American exceptionalism and a brand of manifest destiny that can hardly be matched, even rhetorically (though it sadly is, sometimes).

Not simply that, but progressives loved the security state. Liberty cabbage, imprisoning whistleblowers, spying on your neighbors for possible seditious remarks.... who gave us the Espionage Act? We are talking of pamphleteers who were imprisoned for multiple years for challenging the war on rather uncontroversial grounds.

I doubt progressives, (true ones that is, in the original sense of the word) much cared for unrestricted travel considering their unabashed racist views and feelings of a Teutonic blood line superiority. Not simply that, they are in essence totalitarians. At the very least, authoritarians who wish the state to be involved in practically every aspect of life.

[r3volution 3.0]

Progressives are not less aggressive with regards to foreign policy. They simply hide their interventionism in nationalistic and humanitarian rhetoric.

Indeed, the founder of the progressive party was a war criminal and as well, the most notable progressives of the 20th Century were war mongering, busy bodies spreading the idea of American exceptionalism and a brand of manifest destiny that can hardly be matched, even rhetorically (though it sadly is, sometimes).

Not simply that, but progressives loved the security state. Liberty cabbage, imprisoning whistleblowers, spying on your neighbors for possible seditious remarks.... who gave us the Espionage Act? We are talking of pamphleteers who were imprisoned for multiple years for challenging the war on rather uncontroversial grounds.

I doubt progressives, (true ones that is, in the original sense of the word) much cared for unrestricted travel considering their unabashed racist views and feelings of a Teutonic blood line superiority. Not simply that, they are in essence totalitarians. At the very least, authoritarians who wish the state to be involved in practically every aspect of life.

Yes, that's a good description of the people who called themselves progressives in the late 19th - early 20th century, but I'm talking about the people who call themselves progressive today. They're not quite the same. The modern progressives define themselves in opposition to the Democratic establishment, as less aggressive on foreign policy and critical of the police state. If you've been in the liberty movement very long, you know the type. We periodically have one of them come to us with a plan for a coalition - because we have some overlap with them on foreign policy, the police state, and social issues.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yes, that's a good description of the people who called themselves progressives in the late 19th - early 20th century, but I'm talking about the people who call themselves progressive today. They're not quite the same. The modern progressives define themselves in opposition to the Democratic establishment, as less aggressive on foreign policy and critical of the police state. If you've been in the liberty movement very long, you know the type. We periodically have one of them come to us with a plan for a coalition - because we have some overlap with them on foreign policy, the police state, and social issues.
True.

I still cringe when people such as the types of Jeremy Scahill or Glenn Greenwald describe themselves as progressives though. They perhaps would be well served to research the origins of the party and the views held therein.

I'd consider them more as civil libertarians but whatever floats their boat, and as well, labels often simply box people into respective camps when the truth of it is that people vary widely on important issues even within a given self-ascribed label.

Progressives today are still authoritarians. They believe in collectivism. Possibly the worst kind of political thought that has ever damned this country. Most self-ascribed progressives still worship Wilson and Roosevelt so I can't much say, unless they are completely ignorant of history, that the party's roots ever truly changed. They, in general, still support quite a bit of interventionism.

[r3volution 3.0]

True.

I still cringe when people such as the types of Jeremy Scahill or Glenn Greenwald describe themselves as progressives though. They perhaps would be well served to research the origins of the party and the views held therein.

I'd consider them more as civil libertarians but whatever floats their boat, and as well, labels often simply box people into respective camps when the truth of it is that people vary widely on important issues even within a given self-ascribed label.

Progressives today are still authoritarians. They believe in collectivism. Possibly the worst kind of political thought that has ever damned this country. Most self-ascribed progressives still worship Wilson and Roosevelt so I can't much say, unless they are completely ignorant of history, that the party's roots ever truly changed. They, in general, still support quite a bit of interventionism.

Hell, allegedly small government Republicans still worship at the alter of Lincoln and FDR.

:confused:

So, there's plenty of confusion to go around....

[kcchiefs6465]

Hell, allegedly small government Republicans still worship at the alter of Lincoln and FDR.

:confused:

So, there's plenty of confusion to go around....
True.

Many libertarians as well.

It's kind of surprising yet unsurprising. In general, humans are fearful creatures who when raised in a particular and relatively comfortable setting do not wish to "radically" alter the status quo. Their mind runs wild with what might could happen if even a tax was lifted, or the smallest amount of freedom afforded (say, the legalization of marijuana, for instance). If we didn't have agents surrounding the border, interdicting trade and the movement of people, society would go to the gutter, they argue. In general there are pet issues that each person has and the cost be damned, gathering a majority will make their plans triumphantly acceptable and moral. Whether that means stealing from people, murdering people etc. That is by and large the constant in your taxonomic model. Work is hard. People enjoy comfort. Plunder is legitimized. So they afford their efforts to immorally vote (or lobby) for the confiscation of things rather than using their efforts to better themselves... whether financially, educationally, etc. It is from, in my opinion, a position of ignorance as well as just the petty authority people wish to exercise upon their fellow man.

[thoughtomator]

One flaw in this analysis is the reference to "free trade". What is called "free trade" really isn't (it's economically suicidal reverse mercantilism), and actual free trade isn't on the table.

[Todd]

I recognize no difference between what you call NeoLiberals and NeoCons.

[Christian Liberty]

Where are the anarcho-capitalists?;)

[fr33]

Where are the anarcho-capitalists?;)
Somewhere where they can't be described as a political faction. :p

[GunnyFreedom]

Establishment conservatives are NOT for free trade and immigration, but MANAGED trade and immigration. NAFTA (despite "free trade" being in the name) is nothing to do with Free Trade.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Noecons are the establishment Republicans.

[enhanced_deficit]

Excellent OP post.

Democratic Party

1. Neoliberals (aka international socialists) - e.g. Hillary Clinton
--extremely aggressive foreign policy
--socialistic economic policies
--extremely pro-police-state
--cultural marxism
--economic protectionism but free immigration



I would have put another category like Left-wing-neocons or fairweather windy-neocons like Hillary, Kerry,Mary Landrieu, dronegangsta etc.
But you can't include every fine thread, so it suffices.

[r3volution 3.0]

Noecons are the establishment Republicans.

I agree that the neocons are a part of "the establishment," in the sense that they consistently wield power in Washington. But they aren't the same as what I've called the establishment conservatives. Neocons back the establishment conservative candidate (because they want to back a winner), and the establishment conservatives gladly accept their support and fill their foreign policy posts with neocon apparatchiks. But establishment Republicans don't really have an ideological agenda, as I see it. They're the modern equiavlent of Tammany Hall - they're an Old Boys Club of the traditional sort, in it for the perks and status and patronage opportunities. Mitt Rommey would have filled his administration with neocons, but he was not himself a neocon. The neocons have very few of their own in elected office (someone like Cheney would be an exception to the rule), they mostly wield power from behind the scenes, through donors, PACs, think tanks, media outlets, etc. They're almost more of a pressure group that a faction of the party - but I included them nonetheless because they're such an extremely important pressure group.

[heavenlyboy34]

Is this just a list of "official" factions that we are allowed to be called The Legitimate Ones by TPTB? If not, the list is woefully, woefully short. (woefully, I say!)

[GunnyFreedom]

Seriously, Establishment Conservatives are opposed to free trade and immigration, and they support managed trade and immigration.

[heavenlyboy34]

Establishment conservatives are NOT for free trade and immigration, but MANAGED trade and immigration. NAFTA (despite "free trade" being in the name) is nothing to do with Free Trade.

Out of curiosity, how do you define "establishment conservatives"? A number of people I consider "establishment" don't consider themselves such (i.e. Limbaugh).

[Southron]

Where would a guy like Walter Jones fit?

[r3volution 3.0]

Seriously, Establishment Conservatives are opposed to free trade and immigration, and they support managed trade and immigration.

They're not for free trade, you're right, but they are for free-er trade, as NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. Compare to the Pop-Cons, the Neocons, and some of the Libertarians whose views are encapsulated in the term "China-mart."

As for immigration, the establishment conservatives are the ones whom the other factions constantly accuse of pushing "amnesty," alleging (correctly) that they represent business interests which want the cheap labor (though, IMO, there's nothing wrong with that).

[r3volution 3.0]

Where would a guy like Walter Jones fit?

Libertarians, no?

[Southron]

Libertarians, no?
I would almost break the Republican Party into 2 sub groups.

On one side would be Libertarians and Trad Conservatives or Paleocons.

On the other would be Neocons and your Populists.

[GunnyFreedom]

They're not for free trade, you're right, but they are for free-er trade, as NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. Compare to the Pop-Cons, the Neocons, and some of the Libertarians whose views are encapsulated in the term "China-mart."

As for immigration, the establishment conservatives are the ones whom the other factions constantly accuse of pushing "amnesty," alleging (correctly) that they represent business interests which want the cheap labor (though, IMO, there's nothing wrong with that).

But NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, and so on are not free-er, they are managed-er. And "amnesty" is not open borders, it is selective and regulated immigration. They don't want free-er anything, they just want to be in control of it.

[heavenlyboy34]

I would almost break the Republican Party into 2 sub groups.

On one side would be Libertarians and Trad Conservatives or Paleocons.

On the other would be Neocons and your Populists.

FWIW, it seems "Libertarian" should be spelled with the lower case l. Big-L "Libertarian" is generally used to describe a member of the LP, while the small-l "lbertarian" is used to describe a person who self-identifies as a libertarian or can be accurately described as such. /ramble

[anaconda]

I recognize no difference between what you call NeoLiberals and NeoCons.

I wanna stab at this: I would consider neocons to be nationalistic, Fascist imperialists, utilizing propaganda and brute military force. I would consider neolibs to be globalist, non-nationalistic socialists using creeping increments of social engineering, propaganda, economic warfare, regulatory capture, and limited military engagement. Neolibs have significant overlap with Rockefeller Republicans.