CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Many prominent right wingers are now leftists. Why? Let's see. There is: George Will; Joe Scarborough; S.E. Cupp; Michelle Wallace; Michael Steele; Steve Schmidt; David Jolly … the list goes on, but, I've made my point …. what's yours?? :-)
Steve Schmidt, David Jolly, Joe Scarborough : You are mistaking opposition to Trump as an opposition to right wing political views. By your standards, I would be on your list. We both know I don’t belong there.
Many prominent Right-wingers were once leftists. Why?
Hello A:
In MY view, if support for the Constitution is the ultimate goal, right wingers think LESS government is the way to accomplish it, and lefty's think we need government to ENFORCE it..
Those two points of view aren't very far apart.. If the GOAL is the same, it would be easy to slip between one or the other WITHOUT having to change your world view..
Charles Krauthammer is a perfect example.. He WAS a lib.. In order to ENFORCE the Constitution, libs think you need to SPEND on government.. Krauthammer said NO.. Right wingers didn't wanna SPEND either, so he switched.. He's a FISCAL conservative.
What he, and the other prominent Republicans who switched DIDN'T do, is become CULTURAL right wingers..
In MY view, if support for the Constitution is the ultimate goal, right wingers think LESS government is the way to accomplish it, and lefty's think we need government to ENFORCE it..
Good idea, seeing sanctuary cities are as unconstitutional and lawless as is possible. To the left enforcement depends on whether you agree with them or not. If you are illegal or Democrat, they enforce nothing or give slaps on the wrist. If you disagree with them, they become police state tyrants. That's no different than Stalins USSR or Hitler's Germany. Do as you're told or get the whip.
What he, and the other prominent Republicans who switched DIDN'T do, is become CULTURAL right wingers..
Explain why you would ever want the government involved in dictating culture, and if you wouldn't, and I know I wouldn't, why would I vote for the party that is fiscally hostile to capitalism, businesses, wealth growth, and private property, and wants to tax me into the abyss?
I think you are correct in the core of your point.
What he, and the other prominent Republicans who switched DIDN'T do, is become CULTURAL right wingers..
I think you did, however, miss most of the cultural shift that has actually happened on the right side of the American political spectrum. Some of this was doubtless driven by the socially liberal cultural shift in the 60's & 70's, but most of it is a culmination of other aspects of conservatism.
Not my business
Most of that shift is not a change in values, but rather an outgrowth of what is at the core of the conservative antipathy to government involvement. Fewer conservatives think that many social disagreements are anybody's business but that of the people involved. (I think this is a positive change that actually makes the modern conservative MORE conservative than the stereotypical Archie Bunker type of conservative of the past.
Consider that Phil Robertson says that he thinks homosexuality is a sin (a conservative religious value/belief) but that he does not think that implies anyone should be unkind or discriminatory when dealing with gay people. This is a cultural shift from the standard policies (endorsed by both the left and the right of the past) of imprisonment of homosexuals. This is typical of the general change in national culture as it has manifested on the right (with the exception of the miniscule minority of extremists, who would still be psychopaths if they were left-wingers.)
As people have become less entrenched in local and homogeneous communities, we are less concerned with things that have nothing to do with us.
Profit breeds tolerance
Some of this was also driven by the technological explosion that started in the 80's, and the corresponding explosion of wealth (no just monetary, but also rise in baseline standard of living.)
Fiscal conservatism, because of the core belief in free enterprise and profit, values meritocracy, and rewards capability and profitability. This naturally encourages the valuing of individuals based solely on what they do, differentiating individuals based on accomplishment and capability without regard to irrelevancies like race, sex, or gender.
This is why conservatives are so stupefied by those liberals who embrace identity politics, and the racism, sexism, and discriminatory policies it institutionalizes. We don't see any benefit to society of the leftist racism and sexism. Why make an incidental, irrelevant, and uncontrollable trait like race or sex an issue, when it is neither logical nor just to do so? Why categorize people according to anything but their actions and abilities when that gets in the way of hiring the best people for a position, holding people responsible only for their own behavior, and dealing with an individual without having to calculate his/her connection to any other set of people?
This is why conservatives are so stupefied by those liberals who embrace identity politics, and the racism, sexism, and discriminatory policies it institutionalizes
Hello marcus:
My objective as a human being, is to achieve a color blind society.. We're that the case, we could get on to more productive things.. But, when I look around, I see that racism is still with us, and by your own admission, the left are the only ones who recognize it. So the left it is..
Let's just take the disparity in sentencing between powdered cocaine and crack cocaine.. One is used primarily by whites, and the other is primarily used by black people.. Until the recent crime bill, the sentence for those who used crack cocaine was 18 times HIGHER than that of powdered cocaine users. That's racist. Period, end of story..
If you're NOT looking, I spose stuff like that can get by you.. But, I look..
My objective as a human being, is to achieve a color blind society..
The Democrat Party has made certain that that never happens. Race is all they talk about.
But, when I look around, I see that racism is still with us, and by your own admission, the left are the only ones who recognize it.
I can name you many prominent racist Democrats. The party is flooded with antisemites, Asian haters and white haters. Descrimination is the left's middle name.
the left are the only ones who recognize it.
That's so false, it's almost amusing.
Let's just take the disparity in sentencing between powdered cocaine and crack cocaine.. One is used primarily by whites, and the other is primarily used by black people.. Until the recent crime bill, the sentence for those who used crack cocaine was 18 times HIGHER than that of powdered cocaine users. That's racist. Period, end of story..
And you couldn't even dribble out of your mouth who signed that bill could you? It sure as fuck wasn't an all mouth and no show Democrat.
If you're NOT looking, I spose stuff like that can get by you.. But, I look..
You had to omit that Trump signed that bill and slither around the truth like a typical Lib. Let's just forget that a host of Democrats could have done the same thing for decades but did dick.
But, when I look around, I see that racism is still with us, and by your own admission, the left are the only ones who recognize it.
Where do I say the left are the only ones who recognize racism?
Sure there is racism in the US, primarily on the part of individual assholes and idiots of all races. My point is that the only people who actually come out in favor of institutionalizing racism in academic, corporate, or governmental policy are the people who buy into the identity politics (E.g. nazis, La Raza, BLM, and anybody in favor of Affirmative Action and related programs.)
Let's just take the disparity in sentencing between powdered cocaine and crack cocaine.. One is used primarily by whites, and the other is primarily used by black people..
I think you are mixing apples and oranges when you compare crack to powdered cocaine. Try comparing crack to crystal meth, particularly ice, both of which have similar sentences in most jurisdictions to crack, and both of which are used primarily by whites.
The sentencing disparities between powdered coke and both crack and crystal meth are not about race, but about income/education/social class.
The same goes for the disparities between white collar crimes like embezzlement, and "working" class crimes like burglary and armed robbery. Despite the fact that far more people are negatively affected to a far greater degree by the white collar criminals, they get far lighter sentences in far cushier hoosegows.
You are mistakenly categorizing class-based disparities as race-based disparities.
I think you are mixing apples and oranges when you compare crack to powdered cocaine. Try comparing crack to crystal meth, particularly ice,
Hello again, m:
Knowing you like I do, I'm sure you don't mean to carry water for the racist drug warriors, but that's exactly what you've done.. That's the insidiousness of racism.. Say it LONG enough and LOUD enough, and people will start to believe it - even a fine gentleman like yourself.
It’s no secret that crack cocaine carries a stigma. While casual pot-smoking and cocaine use are tolerated in college dorms and clubs, crack cocaine is often considered to be on a different level - a “hard” drug, like heroin. Few well-off people would casually do, or suggest trying crack cocaine, and if they did, they’d likely get a litany of concerned responses from friends.
Powder cocaine use, however, maintains an element of glamour; it’s associated with the culture of elites, from socialites like Paris Hilton to Wall Street traders. Crack, many people think, is such a hard drug that using it once could cause a user to act recklessly, even dangerously, become addicted, or die.
Legislators, of course, bought into that myth full on. But the claims about crack cocaine’s potential for destruction have proven exaggerated or flat-out false.
Hence, the crime bill wherein the sentences for crack and powdered cocaine have FINALLY merged. They realized their mistake, quietly, of course. Over the last 50 years, I wonder HOW many black families have been RUINED due to this clearly RACIST law.
Hence, the crime bill wherein the sentences for crack and powdered cocaine have FINALLY merged. They realized their mistake, quietly, of course. Over the last 50 years, I wonder HOW many black families have been RUINED due to this clearly RACIST law.
That Trump ended and Democrats never did. Why do you think that is?
Legislators, of course, bought into that myth full on. But the claims about crack cocaine’s potential for destruction have proven exaggerated or flat-out false.
Come on man. Everyone knows addictions to this crap causes people to steal to get their fix and the use of dirty needles.
You’ve ignored his point about meth. Is meth glamorous because it is white, or is there a stigma against it?
If the legal push against crack sprung out of a racist myth, then its difficult to understand why that push started with black leaders who were concerned for their communities.
You’ve ignored his point about meth. Is meth glamorous because it is white, or is there a stigma against it?
If the legal push against crack sprung out of a racist myth, then its difficult to understand why that push started with black leaders who were concerned for their communities.
Hello again, A:
Couple things.. I didn't bring up meth because it has NO place in a discussion about coke.. That they're ALL white in color has NOTHING to do with anything..
Look.. I don't think the people who enacted those draconian penalties, did it out of RACISM.. They did it with a pure heart... Black leaders were no less susceptible to the same myth that white leaders were..
But, that's NOT what makes the law racist.. You and I talked about it before... In the beginning, black people who possessed crack were sentenced to an outrageous 100 times more jail time..
A few years later, when they realized their mistake, they couldn't bare to make the penalties equal.. They STILL kept the disparity at 18 to 1 even when they KNEW crack and powder were the SAME thing....
Don't play around con, you know that I was not referring to the color of Meth, but to the common demographic of it's users. You are ignoring the point about Meth. A point which is completely relevant to the discussion at hand.
We have discussed it before. Crack and Coke do not interact with the body in the same way. Just as Methamphetamine does not interact with the body in the same way that ADHD amphetamines do. Stats on penalties often neglect the increases due to repeated offence. Selling on a corner is very conducive to being repeatedly caught.
The only myth about crack is that babies born to addicted mothers will be psychopaths. It turns out their deficiencies are bad, but not as bad as suspected. The destruction to communities is real. Just as it is with Meth.
I didn't say the elimination of disparity is racist or based on myth, I said the stats on sentencing disparity tends to ignore repeated offence. That's not racist, that's true.
I said:
-Meth tends to be used more by white people. That's true.
-The consideration of sentencing for Meth is relevant to the discussion on drug sentencing. That's true.
-Cocaine does not interact with the body in the same way Crack does. That's true.
-Methamphetamine does not interact with the body in the same way Amphetimine for ADHD does. That's true.
-Babies born to crack addicts suffer deficiencies, though they aren't necessarily psychopaths. That's true.
-Crack is destructive to communities, as is meth. That's true.
When you say you categorically disagree with my entire post, you are mostly disagreeing with true statements. Avoiding addressing them doesn't make you correct, just bullheaded.
Cocaine does not interact with the body in the same way Crack does. That's true
Hello again, A:
That’s false.
Crack cocaine is powdered cocaine and baking soda.. Baking soda is an inert starch. Pharmacologically, biologically, and chemically speaking, crack cocaine CANNOT act differently on your system than powered cocaine does.. That it does, is a MYTH. Everything you BELIEVE about crack is based on RACISM..
First, no it isn't. How a drug is administered affects how it interacts with your body, despite its identical active ingredients. Smoking cocaine produces very quick effects, similar to shooting it. Snorting it produces more prolonged effects. That's why wealthier addicts tend to prefer snorting cocaine in powder form despite increased product cost. When chemical affects are short-lived, they tend to be more addictive. That's why nicotine is harder to kick than THC.
Second, your gripe about the law is federal in nature. Most states do not enforce different sentences for different forms of cocaine. To be charged federally with simple possession, you have to be in federal jurisdiction, which is either on federal land (such as a national park) or while transporting across state borders. This means that most people imprisoned federally for drug crimes have done more than merely possess some crack, which is most often state jurisdiction.
Third, it won't hurt my feelings if they treat crack as powder cocaine at the federal level, even though they effect the body differently (I point out effects to illustrate the reasoning which is not racist in nature). In fact, it won't hurt my feelings if they legalize many drugs. But so long as substance abuse disproportionately affects lower socio-economic classes, and so long as black people are disproportionately poorer, racial disparities in statistics will persist.
THC takes as much as a month to get out of your system. Nicotine takes a few days. That is WHY nicotine is addictive and THC isn't. You can learn more about drugs even while doing less of them.
Everything you BELIEVE about crack is based on RACISM..
Yes, yes. Beliefs that crack is highly addictive, has god awful withdrawals, pushes people to suicide, and that addiction mixed with poverty causes crime is absolutely racist... yes, yes, screw the science and horror stories of addicts. Hold on let me chew on this for a sec...
A few years later, when they realized their mistake, they couldn't bare to make the penalties equal.. They STILL kept the disparity at 18 to 1 even when they KNEW crack and powder were the SAME thing....
That's RACIST, RACIST, RACIST..
Democrats could have changed it for decades. They are such disgusting people that they let blacks be targeted unfairly as colateral damage to keep it as a weapon for politics. Don't change the system, let em stay in jail, and keep the appearance of systematic racism to keep blacks angry. That is pure evil.
I found an interesting resource in the US Sentencing Commission with data from 2017. The first link I’ll provide relates to this topic. The second link is for their crime stat resource in case you’re interested.
It shows average length (in months) of imprisonment (not sentencing) for drug types in Fiscal Year 2017.
75 for powder cocaine
84 for crack
70 for heroin
29 for marijuana
91 for Meth
61 for other
It doesn’t say what the offense was, how much of the drug type was involved, or what the specific crime was. It’s only federal imprisonment data by drug type. But it’s interesting.
Some of the charts are more useful than others. If you dig through the site, you might tease out some of the variables relevant to this chart, but that would take a lot of time.
Powder cocaine use, however, maintains an element of glamour; it’s associated with the culture of elites, from socialites like Paris Hilton to Wall Street traders. Crack, many people think, is such a hard drug that using it once could cause a user to act recklessly, even dangerously, become addicted, or die.
Here we clearly agree.
I cannot tell, however where the race issue impacts sentencing. Certainly crack and crystal meth carry similar stigmas, along with similar sentencing guidelines.
The sentencing disparities between powdered coke and both crack and crystal meth are not about race, but about income/education/social class.
The push for harsher sentencing of crack came from within the black community and was based on its effects. The disparity in sentencing for different drugs has more to do with how they are sold. People who sell anything on the streets are more likely to be coughs repeatedly, ultimately suffering higher sentences for repeat offenders. That goes for marijuana as much as any other drug. Upper class dealers deal more below the radar.
The same goes for the disparities between white collar crimes like embezzlement, and "working" class crimes like burglary and armed robbery.
Embezzlement is a form of theft. Armed robbery and home invasion are violent or potentially violent crimes. There should be a difference.
Despite the fact that far more people are negatively affected to a far greater degree by the white collar criminals
I don’t think you can support this at all. Imagine we eliminated all street crime and low level criminal activity. Now imagine that we instead eliminate all white collar crimes. Which one would save more lives?
I don’t think you can support this at all. Imagine we eliminated all street crime and low level criminal activity. Now imagine that we instead eliminate all white collar crimes. Which one would save more lives?
Criminals who have a higher social position are clearly able to damage society more than those who have a lower social position. Say a judge is addicted to crack cocaine. The mistakes that he/she makes as a result of that addiction are abundantly more likely to negatively impact society than those of someone who is unemployed. The higher position of responsibility occupied by the judge increases the potential damage which can be done.
Consider the case of Larry Nassar, who was able to molest scores of young girls and get away with it for decades because of the position of responsibility he occupied. The Harvey Weinstein scandal is a similar example.
To argue that white collar crime does not have a larger impact on society than blue collar crime is to reject basic common sense. Hence, you continue in your well-established habit of excusing everything rich people do.
Criminals who have a higher social position are clearly able to damage society more than those who have a lower social position.
This statement represents a potentiality rather than a reality. While powerful individuals can harm more people before being caught, the abundance of street crime still outweighs white collar crime for it's negative impact. Furthermore, the effect that maintained the likes of Nassar and Weinstein is not altogether different from that which protects serial murderers in inner cities. That is the victims unwillingness to come forward. Just as high society won't report on the powerful, low society knows not to snitch. However, the wages of low level crimes, much more often are death.
According to the CDC:
19,362 people murdered in the US in 2016
54,793 people unintentionally died from drug overdose
Most white collar crime is financial in nature. Much of it is simply employees stealing from their company. This is no small matter to be sure as it may be as much as $895 billion annually. As large a sum as that is, it amounts to 5% of a typical organizations annual revenue.
For contrast, people stealing from each other costs approximately 5.6 Billion annually. It's about $1,000 per offence.
Again, it is not compelling to claim that saving 5% in annual losses for a typical organization will have a greater societal impact than saving approximately 75,000 people annually.
Embezzlement is a form of theft. Armed robbery and home invasion are violent or potentially violent crimes. There should be a difference.
Fair enough. So just compare embezzlement and burglary (empty houses) and auto theft. My point still stands.
Imagine we eliminated all street crime and low level criminal activity. Now imagine that we instead eliminate all white collar crimes. Which one would save more lives?
That is admittedly hard to track, especially when we include more than embezzlement in the white collar category, and include SEC violations, falsification of safety reports, etc..
There is also more to damage than death (which is inevitable in any case.)
Consider just two examples.
- 1 - One set of criminals in the Arthur Anderson/Enron incident caused:
- Rolling blackouts and skyrocketing electric bills in California that caused thousands of small businesses to fold, thereby increasing unemployment, foreclosures, etc..
- A loss of $74 billion to shareholders. Hundreds of Enron employees, many in their 50's and 60's, lost their entire retirement accounts.
- 2 - The fraudulent sale of known bad derivatives (and the approval of loans to corpses) led to the recent recession, which included in its effects:
-A cost to each household of $50,000 - 120,000. (according to a study released by the Dallas Fed.) which represents a total US output loss of $6 - 14 trillion.
- Record foreclosure rates in the US. 861,664 families lost their homes to foreclosure in 2008. The number of executed foreclosures rose by 81% from 2007, and was up 225% from 2006. 3.1 Million foreclosures were filed for in 2008.(https://money.cnn.com/2009/01/15/real estate/millionsin_foreclosure/)
- A cascade of small business closures.
- WORLDWIDE economic negative effects that included hardship for economically vulnerable folks in the third world.
These are just two sets of crimes, yet the cost in terms of dollars is incalculable because of the scope of the secondary and tertiary effects like divorce, stress-related health issues like heart attacks and strokes, alcoholism/drug use, suicide, etc..
- Mass unemployment.
Absolutely, the smaller scale property crimes (burglary and car theft) have egregious effects in aggregate. However, the large scale of white collar crimes have far greater effects per incident on a far greater number of people. The aggregate costs of these crimes are international and far reaching, often having thousands of victims per incident, and sometimes having Billions of victims.
Yet, the white collar penalties are often nominal. The more millions of dollars you steal, and the larger the number of people you hurt by doing so, the lighter the penalty.
I just found this resource. It’s the US Sentencing Commission for FY2017.
Average improvement for embezzlement was 15 months. 20 for larceny. I didn’t find values lost. Average sentences in 2017 were 10 for larceny and 7 for embezzlement.
I’m sure you can find all kinds of interesting data here.
So just compare embezzlement and burglary (empty houses) and auto theft. My point still stands.
Auto theft is a form of theft where the value stolen is exceedingly high, making it a felony. Regular theft of very high values is felonious whether or not the valued property is a vehicle. I’m not familiar with all the laws of all the states, but embezzlement is a form of theft, making the penalty often commensurate with the value stolen.
Burglary is still altogether different. A person’s domicile has an additional expectation of privacy and safety. Your home has special consideration, even for the government. A person who disregards that consideration commits a different crime than simply taking property.
Furthermore, white collar crime is constantly being committed by lower class people. Check scams, identity theft, and counterfeiting are most often committed by slightly more sophisticated street criminals. The disparities for punishment of such crimes come with the quality of defense attorney, bias of the judge, and repeat offense status.
Misappropriating company funds is also common at lower levels. It is common for a company to opt to merely fire the offender rather than carry out a costly investigation and lawsuit. This is the case on many socio-economic levels.
Consider just two examples
-For your first example: When considering the impact of high level crime vs low level crime, you must consider prevalence. You take note of this at the end of your post where you say that low level crime has takes a large aggregate toll, but high level crimes effect large numbers per incident. Poverty is not associated with crime merely because rich people get caught less. There actually is more crime in poorer environments. There is a higher prevalence of criminals among poor populations than there are Enrons among business populations. So while it is true that a large scale white collar criminal business can negatively impact far more people than a low level criminal, the population of low level criminals is sufficient to significantly damage the lives of far more people than bad businessmen. This is in part because very large crimes such as that of Enron innevitably collapse and are found out. Often it is the collapse of the illusion that brings solidifies loss of money for victims. Madoff said he knew he was screwed well in advance of being caught, but did not know how to remove himself from his criminal behavior without it all coming down on him. So he kept going.
-For your second example: You have made a significant error for your argument here. Whatever the prevalence (which is left unstated) of illegal activity underlying the economic recession, the causes were bad but legal action which was incentivized by our institutions, not punished. In other words, the astronomical costs are irrelevant to this discussion since the cause was primarily unrelated to criminal activity. One of the primary complaints surrounding the recession was how the legal framework allowed for activity which many believe should have been considered illegal. But it was not illegal.
Yet, the white collar penalties are often nominal.
-Chalana McFarland cost a total of $20 million through a series of real estate scams. She was ordered to pay $12 million in restitution and serve 30 years.
-Thomas Petters cost $3.8 million in a Ponzi scheme and was sentenced to 50 years (335 years was recommended)
-Sholam Weiss’s scams toppled the National Heritage Life Insurance company. He was sentenced to 845 years.
-Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years.
Meanwhile where I live:
-Repeat burglars walk free
-Convicted murderers are given housing allowance
-Attempted multiple murderers are free after only 3 years
-The heads of a local counterfeiting scheme are free after mere months (street level white collar crime, but they were shooting at each other over it)
-Vicious wife beaters are free in relatively short order
-Police are overjoyed when they find a gun with the drugs of these various criminals because it means they will finally be put away for a very long time in Federal Prison under the statistic of “Drug Crime” so that Excon can bitch about it.
I know the above are anecdotal, but they are examples that make a point. The criminals that are walking the streets have very likely been caught before. If they are punished so severely, how are there so many repeat offenders?
Yes, high crime is bad and costly. But consider that approximately 75,000 people died in 2016 from murder and overdose. And that was a good year. $5.6 billion is lost annually due to low level theft, with an average of $1000 per victim. That’s also down from years past. The highest estimate I found for white collar crime was $895 billion. But that included all internal misappropriation from all businesses types (large and small) to include crimes by people very with very low socio-economic status. It’s approximately 5% annual revenue lost for a typical company. And no one died.
-For your second example: You have made a significant error for your argument here. Whatever the prevalence (which is left unstated) of illegal activity underlying the economic recession, the causes were bad but legal action which was incentivized by our institutions, not punished. In other words, the astronomical costs are irrelevant to this discussion since the cause was primarily unrelated to criminal activity. One of the primary complaints surrounding the recession was how the legal framework allowed for activity which many believe should have been considered illegal. But it was not illegal.
Fair enough. It was legal to sell the bad derivatives.
However, it was not legal to make loans to corpses. It was not legal to fraudulently misrepresent the quality of the derivatives.
-Chalana McFarland cost a total of $20 million through a series of real estate scams. She was ordered to pay $12 million in restitution and serve 30 years.
She stole $20 million, but ordered to pay back $12 million. At 30 years, IF the entire sentence is served, that is an income of only $266,000/ year. Harsh...
Wait, do YOU make $266,000 per year? I sure as hell do not.
But, when I look around, I see that racism is still with us, and by your own admission, the left are the only ones who recognize it. So the left it is..
The left is the champion of ignoring racism and racist comments from the left.
Thomas Sowell tells a story about being a Communist in graduate school, then spending the summer working for the Department of Labor.
He says when he saw how poorly the federal government functioned, he realized that it was utterly impractical for government to administer resources at the level required by communism or socialism, and he concluded that it is unrealistic to think government would be able to avoid making an expensive botch of everything it attempted to do.
He says when he saw how poorly the federal government functioned, he realized that it was utterly impractical for government to administer resources at the level required by communism or socialism
You're guilty of an egregious misunderstanding common to your country in that you are confusing state capitalism with communism. When the government administers resources that is state capitalism. Communism is a theory about power being given to the working class not the goddamned government.
He has no answer. He's an imbecile. He's the guy that shouts and screams about how shitty things are, but when you ask how he would do it, the cat gets his tongue.
Many prominent Right-wingers were once leftists. Why?
It's an interesting question, but I strongly suspect that you are not looking for the right answer. More likely this is a case of confirmation bias, where you typically try to justify a false premise on the basis of your own false conclusions about something.
In short, the older a person gets, the more likely they become to "sell out". Young people are very frequently raised by parents who give them an idealised version of reality because subconsciously the parents are embarrassed about the real one. Media such as children's films and TV also perpetuate these same myths, where the qualities of humanity are unfairly accentuated and the negative aspects are either under-represented or ignored.
Eventually, everybody "grows up", in that they all learn this children's version of reality is a myth which adults have invented out of guilt. They learn that good does not always triumph over evil and that in fact the opposite is usually true, since evil is more ruthless by its very nature and hence has more options available to it.
Eventually, everybody learns that there is no force at work in the universe which will reward them for doing the right thing.
Eventually, the adults sell out for the short term rewards it offers them, ironically usually at the point they decide to have children of their own. The adults then begin a phase of self-justification in which right wing arguments suddenly become a great resource. However, subconsciously they still feel a sense of guilt that they were not able to change the world for the better, and hence begin the cycle all over again by indoctrinating their own children into the same myths.
In many cases, right wing views are a direct reactionary backlash from children when they eventually grow old enough to realise their parents, teachers, even film directors, were lying to them all throughout their childhood. They take the wrong path for the right reasons.
Your explanation seems to assume that liberal kids had conservative parents who were once liberal, but that those same liberal children will eventually become conservative when they sell out. Is this summary accurate?
Eventually, the adults sell out for the short term rewards it offers them
What do you mean by selling out, and what are the short term benefits?