That’s always going to be true. By definition elites are the people who have benefited most from things being the way they are. They may be socially somewhat liberal, if it makes them look good, but economically always conservative. Because being pro gay marriage doesn’t cost them anything. But universal health care would. Hence you people like Nancy pelosi who use socially progressive positions as a cover for deeply regressive and right wing economic and military policy. That’s also why you get the superficial lip service paid to Black Lives Matter, where they will paint a street or kneel in kente cloths while simultaneously doing nothing whatsoever to materially improve black peoples lives. One costs money, specifically costs the elites money, while the other is free.
What about axes other than economic and foreign policy? There are many government policies in effect that large parts of the right strenuously object to.
In fact, even on foreign policy, I'd be surprised if the forever wars in the middle east enjoy majority support among the right. Isn't isolationism also right-wing? If it's at all helpful to classify policies into 'left' and 'right'..
Yes. To be a wealthy left-winger, you have to condemn yourself. People sometimes get confused because they watch 24 hour news networks that think H. Clinton is a radical communist.
Our entire current wave is based in 90s tea party astroturfing by billionaires that got out of control when it encountered the militia movement.
yes, but the "left-wing elites" aren't the ones pushing political nihilism. "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem" isn't something the left ever claims.
Anyone father left than "slightly more money for foodstamps" may be heard saying exactly that - with the caveat that they're talking about our government, not the idea of government generally.
Marxist here. Just like any libertarian, we acknowledge the capitalist state as a monopoly on violence, but we also acknowledge the capitalist state exists because capital maintains it. When you understand this, you quickly realize that fighting for something like a national universal healthcare program challenges the capitalist state more than anything libertarians want to do.
That's because we've seen where that brand of socialism (and anarchy) leads --> authoritarianism. It has never worked on anything bigger than the village level. You need abstract means of exchange (money) to get people on a large scale to cooperate. People in my village do not care about people two villages over who they only ever barely met let alone someone hundreds of miles away.