No, I mean that woke has zero democratic legitimacy, and in fact, it proves that Western countries are not democracies. No one wanted this. But what's good for the goose...
Premarital sex, whores, and porn have existed for all of human history.
There's more of it now, because 'Puritans' stopped resisting it.
You can't really invoke sexual traditionalism when marrying 12 year olds was totally fine until the 1800s.
Not sure wheree you're getting 12, but yes, people married younger because of low life expectancy - even for people who had reached their teenager years.
Sexual morality largely did not exist, or the bar was so low that it might as well not have existed, all throughout classical times, ancient greece, rome, and thousands of years prior.
Wut? What would happen if a Greek or Roman man found his wife with a stranger? That would be the end of that stranger.
I can't think of any society that would satisfy your standards for sexual morality other than the Puritan colonists
Victorian Enngland, where Charles Dickens had to secretly separate from his wife. And frankly, it worked rather well. That is my only criterion: whether it works well. It is a matter of indifference to me whether people have premarital sex, or if they divorce. But it's clear that it does not work well, and that a return to traditional norms is called for.
I'm sure plenty of people in Roman times chose to not have kids and used the pull-out method to prevent pregnancy. Just because you can't name them doesn't mean they didn't exist.
There would be no point in marrying at all, if you did not want kids. And "I'm sure" is not exactly the best argument. It would be rather curious and remarked on by people - which is exactly my point.
Of course, as you say, the poor could use them for farmhands, and the wealthy needed kids for alliances and to pass on property.
"Human rights" are simply the norms of rights that all or nearly all people agree on. They exist because we collectively will them into existence. They are enforced through consensus.
They're not enforced though. Whenever they are inconvenieint, the ruling class defines them out of existence. You really think people like Biden or Trudeau (or Romney) think that you have rights? Don't be silly. It's about what they can do, and what they can't do.
I don't advocate sexual libertinism. I just don't think the government should be in the business of enforcing pure "morality" through the barrel of a gun.
That's fine, yours is the more popular position at the moment. But this is what the state has done for literally all of history.
I'm sure prostitutes existed in the USSR,
There you go again with your "I'm sure". Yeah sure, I bet there was that one woman in Nizhni Novgorod. But was it common? No. When did it become common? With Western influences. Same for drug use. Just how much drug use was there in the USSR? Or homosexuality? Nixon himself remarked on that fact...
This led to the lie/contrivance of claiming that premarital sex is a sin, when there is absolutely no verse anywhere in the Bible that says premarital sex is a sin. It's a pure invention, a pure fabrication, designed to keep young women's legs closed so they stay in school.
Quite an absurd suggestion, as Deuteronomy prescribes stoning for women who are not virgins at marriage, but let us assume that you are correct. Does it have social utility to say that it is a sin, or does it not? Suppose that I accept that people having sex before marriage is good because they like it. How does that stack up against the myriad of social problems created in that manner?
No, the vast majority of feminists are very much against things like porn, prostitution, and even things like breast implants.
Evidently, you are not familiar with the new breed of feminist, which regards transgenders and 'sex workers' as two of the most holiest classes known to man.
And not sure why you think you have more exposure to feminists because you lived in LA. You do know Western Europe is more 'progressive' on sexual matters than LA, right?
The black community is a perfect example of how socialism can destroy cultural values.
Shocker, you see a social problem, and you blame it on 'libtards' and 'Democrats'.
If you simply took away that socialism, the whole cycle is broken because single black mothers don't get rewarded for their bad choices
How good do you think single mothers have it? You think they drive Cadillacs? I'm sure this is part of the problem, but not nearly the extent to which you want to conveniently blame it all on the 'libtards'. Part of the problem is that because so many black men are in prison (and because they have better options than black women, who are generally not regarded as the most attractive of women), women cannot enforce things like commitment, marriage and child support in relationshiips. Result is that they are pumped and dumped.
The difference is that I do NOT agree on using heavy handed big government socialism like criminal laws to try to coerce society into obedience.
I guess all of history was just 'socialism'.
Policy in this area is difficult, but you can get the result you want with intelligence and a light touch, instead of stupid, crude socialism that has been generally historically proven to fail.
I actually completely agree. Society has to be made ready for Victorianism first. It may never work. Previous attempts to put genies back into bottles never did. But it's without question superior than what we have now.
I guess all of history was just 'socialism'. Society has to be made ready for Victorianism first.
Victorianism was enforced bottom-up through social shaming, instead of top-down through socialism. Throughout history governments were usually very weak and did not interfere much in day to day society. Governments really only cared about collecting taxes, keeping some minimal law and order, and being able to raise money/troops for whatever project/war the current king/emperor was working on.
Ultimately things like this are controlled through cultural norms, not the law. When the two conflict, the social forces are only held back temporarily, and then you get the Stonewall Riots and 50 years of LGBTs trying to rise up to dominate society and the culture because not enough people are willing to stop them (which is thankfully changing now).
That is why it is critical, if you want to win, that you CONVINCE the majority of society to follow your values and SELL them on it. Just like with a military occupation and insurgency, it comes down to winning hearts and minds. [I maintain the US lost in Afghanistan because in 20 years, we could not convince muslim men to suddenly adopt liberal western values, which was never going to happen. Had we just been like "yeah sharia law is fine, we don't care about women's rights" the war would have been over in a couple years and Afghanistan would have stabilized.]
If the LGBTs had stopped short of their current lunacy, they would have kept a lot of cultural power pretty much forever. Since they pushed too far and have been creating a backlash against them, they are going to end up with a society where the unthinkable happens: people are actually "allowed" to be anti-LGBT to a considerable degree. The same will eventually be true with blacks. Every business BLM burns brings society one step closer to calling them niggers again. Now, I doubt we will see things go that far, but you get the point:
Once your side is winning, the smart move is to bunker down once you get most of your goals met without pushing too far, so that you keep the culture just a little bit skewed in your favor, but not enough to fuel a backlash. Any movement that goals all gas no brakes is inevitably going to create a backlash and eventual equilibrium against it. I'd like to see that stop with the coming Red Wave. If the Right can be responsible with its power, it will actually get to keep power and we can keep the wokes away for that much longer.
Victorianism was enforced bottom-up through social shaming, instead of top-down through socialism. Throughout history governments were usually very weak and did not interfere much in day to day society. Governments really only cared about collecting taxes, keeping some minimal law and order, and being able to raise money/troops for whatever project/war the current king/emperor was working on.
Correct. But these norms were enforced by government, and no one questioned the right of the state to interfere in people's sex lives.
Ultimately things like this are controlled through cultural norms, not the law. When the two conflict, the social forces are only held back temporarily, and then you get the Stonewall Riots and 50 years of LGBTs trying to rise up to dominate society and the culture because not enough people are willing to stop them (which is thankfully changing now).
But the law did not conflict with cultural norms at the time. Most people were still conservative on these matters through the 1960s and 70s. In this case, culture was downstream from politics, and technology (birth control).
That is why it is critical, if you want to win, that you CONVINCE the majority of society to follow your values and SELL them on it. Just like with a military occupation and insurgency, it comes down to winning hearts and minds.
The woke do not bother to do that. They just use power to impose everything on society. The problem is that we don't have power, but that is the only problem.
If the LGBTs had stopped short of their current lunacy, they would have kept a lot of cultural power pretty much forever.
I doubt it. What would happen is that they would be assimilated into mainstream society, and they would lose their distinctiveness - which is what permits them 'cultural power'. Same for the 'civil rights' establishment. I'm sure they'd be more popular if they were not pushing crazy things, but they would not be as powerful as they are now.
The same will eventually be true with blacks. Every business BLM burns brings society one step closer to calling them niggers again. Now, I doubt we will see things go that far, but you get the point:
That's what I thought, that there would be a ferocious backlash, not against blacks but against this id grievance politics. Turns out, there wasn't, because their advocates are in power.
When adherents of the powerful riot, they get what they want. When opponents of the powerful riot, they get show trials and go to isolation for a year over nothing.
Once your side is winning, the smart move is to bunker down once you get most of your goals met without pushing too far, so that you keep the culture just a little bit skewed in your favor, but not enough to fuel a backlash.
Clausewitz fan?
I do agree. The law should impose some basic norms, but then social norms should be used to move things ever closer in a desirable direction. After a while, the law can catch up.
If the Right can be responsible with its power, it will actually get to keep power and we can keep the wokes away for that much longer.
The 'Right' is more than responsible with its power, it does absolutely nothing with power. Probably because it does not actually disagree with the things that it pretends to oppose in order to get into office.
I find it hilarious that you are worried about rightist overreach, when decades of election victories have achieved precisely nothing.
The wokes 100% won over hearts and minds. Not RATIONAL MINDS, mind you. They won over white women. Using their intersectional power base of minorities + white women, the wokes deployed their LGBT and Antifa shock troopers to bully the sheep who they couldn't manipulate and indoctrinate. Most people are selfish cowards who want to freeload off of the sacrifice of others. So it's difficult to get champions to stand up to the wokes. It's only now in 2022 that the tide is finally turning against them because of a barrage of headlines about them bullying their enemies, and major cultural powerhouses like Dave Chappelle turning against them.
The Right gains power by convincing the middle to take our side. Unfortunately the middle is full of selfish, cowardly sheeple. Being forced to be at their mercy is obnoxious, but it's the price you pay for democracy.
Well, LGBTs would be "assimilated", but in that assimilation, their cultural power would also be given a kind of permanency. They would no longer be activist, they'd merely be high on the totem pole. I would compare this to the jews. The jews took a top spot in American society and have just stayed there ever since. They stayed because their only major policy ask is support for Israel, which most Americans (on the Right at least) support on principle. I would say the jews represent an example of a powerful group that "won" and simply became entrenched and accepted.
The 2020 BLM riots did a lot of damage to the Left, just not enough. Trump went from 63m votes in 2016 to 74m in 2020. I never voted before 2020, when I voted for Trump. The only reason it wasn't a blowout in Trump's favor was because he was individually so controversial and the limp wristed normie cowards all turned against him because of his mean tweets. So Trump sort of threw a wrench into the normal backlash. Hopefully now in 2022, the backlash will begin to take shape more fully.
Intersectionality is a monster that the Left has been building for 60+ years. We will not slay it just after 1 chimpout like in 2020. But you can already see it is bleeding and weakening. TERFs versus Trans. The backlash against "defund the police." The fact that the Right at least is finally starting to lose its fear of criticizing black people (although they desperately want to recruit blacks to say it for them because they are still so deeply indoctrinated in racial bullshit). These things are the first cracks in the intersectional monster. The biggest wound of all - if it continues - is hispanics turning against the Left. If that becomes the reality, where hispanics are swing voters and not a Democrat lock, then holy shit, that is the death knell of intersectionality. The WHOLE POINT of intersectionality was to trick mexicans into thinking republicans were racist. Without the hispanics, the intersection coalition isn't even a majority! Blacks, LGBTs, and emotional white women are a recipe for permanent minority. Orthodox jews are also shifting to the Right. Asians are lagging, but they will follow once it is "safe". I do think we will see the destruction of intersectionality as a dominant political force in the next 10 years.
I agree with social power leading, not government power. Instead, government power should be designed to boost your social power goals towards voluntary incentives instead of coercive restrictions.
The Right did a lot of good given its limitations in the 80s and 90s, but by the 2000s the Republicans had grown fat and selfish, and betrayed their fiscal conservative to waste money. This did huge harm to the Right, resulting in the later Tea Party backlash which basically only existed to weaken Obama. John McCain fucked us on Obamacare repeal. Roberts and to a lesser extent Kavanaugh really fuck over the Right in the Supreme Court. The Right is best when it sticks to its principles, like that list of policy goals I linked in the KIA2 sub on reddit with the Senate Republican platform. Unfortunately the nature of US politics is that you need 60 votes in the Senate, so the result is that all policies end up as watered down compromises.
Most people are selfish cowards who want to freeload off of the sacrifice of others. So it's difficult to get champions to stand up to the wokes.
So... it did not have the consent of theh governed. If people are intimidated, that is not consent - though male feminists may disagree on that.
The Right gains power by convincing the middle to take our side. Unfortunately the middle is full of selfish, cowardly sheeple. Being forced to be at their mercy is obnoxious, but it's the price you pay for democracy.
lol @ you for unironically buying into claims that any Western country is a 'democracy'. They are oligarchies, which you can see by the fact that minority views are forced through and ordinary people have close to zero influence.
Well, LGBTs would be "assimilated", but in that assimilation, their cultural power would also be given a kind of permanency. They would no longer be activist, they'd merely be high on the totem pole. I would compare this to the jews. The jews took a top spot in American society and have just stayed there ever since. They stayed because their only major policy ask is support for Israel, which most Americans (on the Right at least) support on principle
They're economically powerful, which is a sort of personal power. But they're not powerful as Jews. Power means that you can ask for things that are against the majority of the people and the elites. It's like me starting a League Against Eating Your Own Shit and then claiming success because everyonee agrees with me.
The 2020 BLM riots did a lot of damage to the Left, just not enough. Trump went from 63m votes in 2016 to 74m in 2020.
How come the number of votes for the drooling, senile idiot increased even more though? You say mean tweets, or whatever. If getting your country burned down is not enough to make people turn on the left, nothing will.
The biggest wound of all - if it continues - is hispanics turning against the Left. If that becomes the reality, where hispanics are swing voters and not a Democrat lock, then holy shit, that is the death knell of intersectionality. The WHOLE POINT of intersectionality was to trick mexicans into thinking republicans were racist. Without the hispanics, the intersection coalition isn't even a majority! Blacks, LGBTs, and emotional white women are a recipe for permanent minority. Orthodox jews are also shifting to the Right
Orthodox Jews are already Right. Unfortunately, there are many who call themselves Jews as a cover but are just woke idiots.
You're fantasizing about permanent majorities. That simply doesn't happen. You will win and you will lose. But given the nature of the system, you will lose politically whether you win elections or lose them.
The Right did a lot of good given its limitations in the 80s and 90s
Winning one election after another, and ending up appointing 3 activists to the SCOTUS vs. 2 constitutionalists. Also, basically getting nothing done and continuing the social disintegration, which led us to where we are today.
The right is useless, but I'm open to hoping that it will do better.
John McCain fucked us on Obamacare repeal
You should be happy, because that would have had disastrous electorally - and you think elections matter.
Unfortunately the nature of US politics is that you need 60 votes in the Senate, so the result is that all policies end up as watered down compromises.
Like Patrick Deneen has written, both parties are liberal - one socially, the other economically. It's not as much that they are 'watered down compromises', but that they always advance liberalism. When GOP wins, they advance economic liberalism while doing nothing on the social front, when the Dems win, they advance social liberalism while doing nothing on the economic frornt.
No, I mean that woke has zero democratic legitimacy, and in fact, it proves that Western countries are not democracies. No one wanted this. But what's good for the goose...
There's more of it now, because 'Puritans' stopped resisting it.
Not sure wheree you're getting 12, but yes, people married younger because of low life expectancy - even for people who had reached their teenager years.
Wut? What would happen if a Greek or Roman man found his wife with a stranger? That would be the end of that stranger.
Victorian Enngland, where Charles Dickens had to secretly separate from his wife. And frankly, it worked rather well. That is my only criterion: whether it works well. It is a matter of indifference to me whether people have premarital sex, or if they divorce. But it's clear that it does not work well, and that a return to traditional norms is called for.
There would be no point in marrying at all, if you did not want kids. And "I'm sure" is not exactly the best argument. It would be rather curious and remarked on by people - which is exactly my point.
Of course, as you say, the poor could use them for farmhands, and the wealthy needed kids for alliances and to pass on property.
They're not enforced though. Whenever they are inconvenieint, the ruling class defines them out of existence. You really think people like Biden or Trudeau (or Romney) think that you have rights? Don't be silly. It's about what they can do, and what they can't do.
That's fine, yours is the more popular position at the moment. But this is what the state has done for literally all of history.
There you go again with your "I'm sure". Yeah sure, I bet there was that one woman in Nizhni Novgorod. But was it common? No. When did it become common? With Western influences. Same for drug use. Just how much drug use was there in the USSR? Or homosexuality? Nixon himself remarked on that fact...
Quite an absurd suggestion, as Deuteronomy prescribes stoning for women who are not virgins at marriage, but let us assume that you are correct. Does it have social utility to say that it is a sin, or does it not? Suppose that I accept that people having sex before marriage is good because they like it. How does that stack up against the myriad of social problems created in that manner?
Evidently, you are not familiar with the new breed of feminist, which regards transgenders and 'sex workers' as two of the most holiest classes known to man.
And not sure why you think you have more exposure to feminists because you lived in LA. You do know Western Europe is more 'progressive' on sexual matters than LA, right?
Shocker, you see a social problem, and you blame it on 'libtards' and 'Democrats'.
How good do you think single mothers have it? You think they drive Cadillacs? I'm sure this is part of the problem, but not nearly the extent to which you want to conveniently blame it all on the 'libtards'. Part of the problem is that because so many black men are in prison (and because they have better options than black women, who are generally not regarded as the most attractive of women), women cannot enforce things like commitment, marriage and child support in relationshiips. Result is that they are pumped and dumped.
I guess all of history was just 'socialism'.
I actually completely agree. Society has to be made ready for Victorianism first. It may never work. Previous attempts to put genies back into bottles never did. But it's without question superior than what we have now.
Victorianism was enforced bottom-up through social shaming, instead of top-down through socialism. Throughout history governments were usually very weak and did not interfere much in day to day society. Governments really only cared about collecting taxes, keeping some minimal law and order, and being able to raise money/troops for whatever project/war the current king/emperor was working on.
Ultimately things like this are controlled through cultural norms, not the law. When the two conflict, the social forces are only held back temporarily, and then you get the Stonewall Riots and 50 years of LGBTs trying to rise up to dominate society and the culture because not enough people are willing to stop them (which is thankfully changing now).
That is why it is critical, if you want to win, that you CONVINCE the majority of society to follow your values and SELL them on it. Just like with a military occupation and insurgency, it comes down to winning hearts and minds. [I maintain the US lost in Afghanistan because in 20 years, we could not convince muslim men to suddenly adopt liberal western values, which was never going to happen. Had we just been like "yeah sharia law is fine, we don't care about women's rights" the war would have been over in a couple years and Afghanistan would have stabilized.]
If the LGBTs had stopped short of their current lunacy, they would have kept a lot of cultural power pretty much forever. Since they pushed too far and have been creating a backlash against them, they are going to end up with a society where the unthinkable happens: people are actually "allowed" to be anti-LGBT to a considerable degree. The same will eventually be true with blacks. Every business BLM burns brings society one step closer to calling them niggers again. Now, I doubt we will see things go that far, but you get the point:
Once your side is winning, the smart move is to bunker down once you get most of your goals met without pushing too far, so that you keep the culture just a little bit skewed in your favor, but not enough to fuel a backlash. Any movement that goals all gas no brakes is inevitably going to create a backlash and eventual equilibrium against it. I'd like to see that stop with the coming Red Wave. If the Right can be responsible with its power, it will actually get to keep power and we can keep the wokes away for that much longer.
Correct. But these norms were enforced by government, and no one questioned the right of the state to interfere in people's sex lives.
But the law did not conflict with cultural norms at the time. Most people were still conservative on these matters through the 1960s and 70s. In this case, culture was downstream from politics, and technology (birth control).
The woke do not bother to do that. They just use power to impose everything on society. The problem is that we don't have power, but that is the only problem.
I doubt it. What would happen is that they would be assimilated into mainstream society, and they would lose their distinctiveness - which is what permits them 'cultural power'. Same for the 'civil rights' establishment. I'm sure they'd be more popular if they were not pushing crazy things, but they would not be as powerful as they are now.
That's what I thought, that there would be a ferocious backlash, not against blacks but against this id grievance politics. Turns out, there wasn't, because their advocates are in power.
When adherents of the powerful riot, they get what they want. When opponents of the powerful riot, they get show trials and go to isolation for a year over nothing.
Clausewitz fan?
I do agree. The law should impose some basic norms, but then social norms should be used to move things ever closer in a desirable direction. After a while, the law can catch up.
The 'Right' is more than responsible with its power, it does absolutely nothing with power. Probably because it does not actually disagree with the things that it pretends to oppose in order to get into office.
I find it hilarious that you are worried about rightist overreach, when decades of election victories have achieved precisely nothing.
The wokes 100% won over hearts and minds. Not RATIONAL MINDS, mind you. They won over white women. Using their intersectional power base of minorities + white women, the wokes deployed their LGBT and Antifa shock troopers to bully the sheep who they couldn't manipulate and indoctrinate. Most people are selfish cowards who want to freeload off of the sacrifice of others. So it's difficult to get champions to stand up to the wokes. It's only now in 2022 that the tide is finally turning against them because of a barrage of headlines about them bullying their enemies, and major cultural powerhouses like Dave Chappelle turning against them.
The Right gains power by convincing the middle to take our side. Unfortunately the middle is full of selfish, cowardly sheeple. Being forced to be at their mercy is obnoxious, but it's the price you pay for democracy.
Well, LGBTs would be "assimilated", but in that assimilation, their cultural power would also be given a kind of permanency. They would no longer be activist, they'd merely be high on the totem pole. I would compare this to the jews. The jews took a top spot in American society and have just stayed there ever since. They stayed because their only major policy ask is support for Israel, which most Americans (on the Right at least) support on principle. I would say the jews represent an example of a powerful group that "won" and simply became entrenched and accepted.
The 2020 BLM riots did a lot of damage to the Left, just not enough. Trump went from 63m votes in 2016 to 74m in 2020. I never voted before 2020, when I voted for Trump. The only reason it wasn't a blowout in Trump's favor was because he was individually so controversial and the limp wristed normie cowards all turned against him because of his mean tweets. So Trump sort of threw a wrench into the normal backlash. Hopefully now in 2022, the backlash will begin to take shape more fully.
Intersectionality is a monster that the Left has been building for 60+ years. We will not slay it just after 1 chimpout like in 2020. But you can already see it is bleeding and weakening. TERFs versus Trans. The backlash against "defund the police." The fact that the Right at least is finally starting to lose its fear of criticizing black people (although they desperately want to recruit blacks to say it for them because they are still so deeply indoctrinated in racial bullshit). These things are the first cracks in the intersectional monster. The biggest wound of all - if it continues - is hispanics turning against the Left. If that becomes the reality, where hispanics are swing voters and not a Democrat lock, then holy shit, that is the death knell of intersectionality. The WHOLE POINT of intersectionality was to trick mexicans into thinking republicans were racist. Without the hispanics, the intersection coalition isn't even a majority! Blacks, LGBTs, and emotional white women are a recipe for permanent minority. Orthodox jews are also shifting to the Right. Asians are lagging, but they will follow once it is "safe". I do think we will see the destruction of intersectionality as a dominant political force in the next 10 years.
I agree with social power leading, not government power. Instead, government power should be designed to boost your social power goals towards voluntary incentives instead of coercive restrictions.
The Right did a lot of good given its limitations in the 80s and 90s, but by the 2000s the Republicans had grown fat and selfish, and betrayed their fiscal conservative to waste money. This did huge harm to the Right, resulting in the later Tea Party backlash which basically only existed to weaken Obama. John McCain fucked us on Obamacare repeal. Roberts and to a lesser extent Kavanaugh really fuck over the Right in the Supreme Court. The Right is best when it sticks to its principles, like that list of policy goals I linked in the KIA2 sub on reddit with the Senate Republican platform. Unfortunately the nature of US politics is that you need 60 votes in the Senate, so the result is that all policies end up as watered down compromises.
So... it did not have the consent of theh governed. If people are intimidated, that is not consent - though male feminists may disagree on that.
lol @ you for unironically buying into claims that any Western country is a 'democracy'. They are oligarchies, which you can see by the fact that minority views are forced through and ordinary people have close to zero influence.
They're economically powerful, which is a sort of personal power. But they're not powerful as Jews. Power means that you can ask for things that are against the majority of the people and the elites. It's like me starting a League Against Eating Your Own Shit and then claiming success because everyonee agrees with me.
How come the number of votes for the drooling, senile idiot increased even more though? You say mean tweets, or whatever. If getting your country burned down is not enough to make people turn on the left, nothing will.
Orthodox Jews are already Right. Unfortunately, there are many who call themselves Jews as a cover but are just woke idiots.
You're fantasizing about permanent majorities. That simply doesn't happen. You will win and you will lose. But given the nature of the system, you will lose politically whether you win elections or lose them.
Winning one election after another, and ending up appointing 3 activists to the SCOTUS vs. 2 constitutionalists. Also, basically getting nothing done and continuing the social disintegration, which led us to where we are today.
The right is useless, but I'm open to hoping that it will do better.
You should be happy, because that would have had disastrous electorally - and you think elections matter.
Like Patrick Deneen has written, both parties are liberal - one socially, the other economically. It's not as much that they are 'watered down compromises', but that they always advance liberalism. When GOP wins, they advance economic liberalism while doing nothing on the social front, when the Dems win, they advance social liberalism while doing nothing on the economic frornt.