Reply to comment

To me, being a leftist means seeking radical social and economic change with an eye towards a more tolerable equality, never complete equality...because I don't believe that is possible. It is a place where class extremes do not exploit the masses. For instance, the wealthy are not given special tax privileges or private access to lobbyists to grease the palms of politicians and effect legislation to exploit the poor while they line their pockets. The poor don't lack incentive to excel and settle for nothing, expecting complete financial support. I believe there is room enough for the majority of people to not be exploited by either social class, and for a greater sense of reality to govern a sense of reasonableness. I think my views on many issues address this.

I differ greatly from my husband's leftist theories - where he believes that radical social and economic change is best gained by military power and force, because he thinks capitalism has gone so far out of hand when countries like the U.S. are kicking elderly people out of their foreclosed homes after being conned into taking questionable loans. Or, he thinks that when the right creates a militaristic society as is being done by Homeland Security, losing touch with its purpose, that we need to bring it back to reality with revolution. He tends more towards communism as the solution, where I'm probably under the label of Democratic socialist. In my ideologic model, no one feels a need to grab that government job to glean the best riches, nor do they feel compelled to give up their right to privacy for corporate mandates. It is a more centered approach. I don't believe in expropriation except where it was gained illegally. So you say how do I determine if something is stolen? To me, when the government can force a person to sell their house to build a freeway, that land is stolen...because it has a legal deed and the owner should never be forced to let that deed go. To me, when a company uses payoffs to lobbyists to establish policies that regulate employee benefits or pay, that is stealing, because our government shouldn't be bribed that way, unless the little guy is allowed to use bribes to avoid laws too. To me, when two kids are up for a college slot and one gains admittance because their father has donated X amount of dollars to the school, that is stealing as well, especially when he then claims that donation also as a tax deduction. Those are just as appalling to me as the person who asks for a welfare check to support their child and then lives with their domestic partner who is raking in a good income. No difference! Who determines this? I think it is determined again based on what is reasonable. And I think that the old judicial adage of what a person of reason would do could cover many behaviors.

I think leftist politicians should act on behalf of humanitarianism, although I'm not sure most do. I think it is sad that this isn't the case. Unfortunately, like any other political ideology, greed usually spurs a politician's career agenda. The realism in this is no different than any other political idealism, IMO. Just as in Communism, many top politicians walk away from political office just as wealthy as any Capitalist politician because they all seem to reach the conclusion that when they make policy it doesn't apply to them. How else would you explain a right winged Republican legislator who vehemently opposes socialized health care when their own healthcare coverage for their family is exactly that?

Simply, I don't have faith in those who govern and feel they should be replaced after two terms, instead of allowing them to become lifetime politicians. That might limit their ability to skim the dollars at the top and remain true to their original ideas of how government should be.