Well, here is the thing, not all of the founding fathers were of that mindset. Some of the founding fathers wanted to recreate a monarchy. They wanted to crown George Washington as king. This is yet again another example of how folks like you (i.e. so called conservatives) like to rewrite and ignore inconvenient facts. Well again, your assertions are not grounded in fact or reason. Where is your evidence monarchies are the "epitome of big heavy handed government"? I'd say that depends on the monarch. I'd say Stalinism is epitome of "big heavy handed government". It's those damn facts again...those damn facts that continually vex you. Why would the Democratic Party admit to something that isn't true? The more important question is do you have any credible evidence to back your assertion that the Democratic Party favors a return of monarchical form of government? And we both know the answer to that question is no. You are making shit up again as partisans on both sides of the ideological divide are wont to do. Well that's interesting given Republicans are only party to have elected a dynastic presidency in the last 70+ years. Daddy Bush was elected in 88 and Baby Bush (his son) was elected/appointed in 2000 and elected in 2004. And one more point, communism, socialism, and monarchy aren't the same. This gets back to your penchant for oversimplification and fudging the facts. But it's what Republicans do, they do it daily.
Yes: Therefore That is a key point. If you are confused about that, you will never be able to use the terms "left" and "right" in any way that makes sense except by accident. If you are talking about an ideology that favors and intends organizing the entire economy of a nation around ownership by capitalist corporations, you are talking about a rightwing ideology. By definition. That's the core meaning of the term. And simultaneously my points are agreed upon: you agree that fascism is on the "right", and your argument that there are no "really important domestic economic issues between the {American left and the American fascists} rests on your assessment that issues such as who owns health insurance in the US are not large, "really important", or much of a distinction. I accept that. If matters such as health care costs and payouts are not important, neither is the distinction between left and right in US politics. Did they now. That explains a lot. http://www.aei.org/scholar/jonah-goldberg/ Aside from his well-taken and disturbing-to-some observations about American "Liberals" of the past who supported or excused evil fascist government and passed that tendency down through the wine and cheese to "Liberals" today (attacking "Liberals" for their character flaws is how Goldberg earns his keep, day in and day out), Goldberg's argument as relevant to this thread is this: if people he calls "Liberals" supported Mussolini, fascism is a leftwing ideology. And he can show the premise. Sold. But why would anyone bother to make such an argument? One reason is this: they get paid. Selling fascism as leftwing is important to the American fascists, because it keeps people from calling them fascists. Fascism has a bad reputation, in the US. Fortunately they are wealthy, and they own and control a lot of the US media, including every nickel of Jonah Goldberg's paychecks. I am not at all surprised you find Goldberg's arguments "quite good". They're the same as your arguments. But here's a tip: if you are arguing with any American of even moderate information and reasoning ability, do not describe yourself as someone who finds their "quite good" arguments in the editorial section of the National Review. Alternatively, with your famous ability to sniff out propaganda by "common sense", check out Goldberg's career and economic support - starting, say, with who bought all those copies of "Liberal Fascism", who reviewed the book, and what they had to say. What you describe as "quite well-known" is in the US merely a canard of the wingnut Right - a falsehood so often repeated that even to examine it renders one a fringe figure. The overwhelming majority of mainstream "journalists" in the US continually express in public nothing but rightwing positions. Whether there is even a single journalist writing and expressing themselves from solidly leftwing positions currently in the US "mainstream" is a matter of how one defines "mainstream" - there are a couple at what I would call a "high level", meaning they are professionally paid for journalism and published in venues of wide circulation and availability, but none I would call mainstream. In the US people like Paul Krugman are called leftwing - because there's basically nobody to the left of them. I'm not sure why one would be led to assume the small minority - if even that exists - of leftwing positions in the mainstream media of the US would be expected to dominate what one finds in Wikipedia. Meanwhile, since Goldberg refuses to bow to the faddish but poorly paid (Trump has no use for even pretend journalism) winds of Trump support, but instead stays true to the fountains of paycheck (none of whom like Trump), we can look forward to a lot of "Both Sides" bushwa and the talking point standard Sanders/Trump pairing, from him as well as the mainstream media he is paid to sway (from within - Goldberg is far better entrenched in the mainstream media than any leftwing journalist I can think of). Will that be more evidence for you that the Left in the US is supporting fascism? My money says it will. Edit in: out of curiosity, caught up on Goldberg's "thinking" about the campaign - and found a 60 second video in which he points out that the power of celebrity now defeats the power of Party establishment, and that explains how Trump took over the Republican Party - and likewise explains, he pairs them explicitly, Sanders campaign. Apparently, Sanders is deepthinking Goldberg's idea of a celebrity candidate, like Trump.
Additionally I would add that if you take the average volume of discourse in the US as "mainstream" then the media* IS to the left of center. But that's not because they have moved, it is because the country has moved steadily to the right. Reagan, a republican who is now worshiped by many right-wingers, would be seen as a bedwetting liberal if he were to run today. Similarly, people like Hilary Clinton, who in Reagan's era would have been either a centrist or a republican, are now seen as democratic candidates. (* - representing the organizations who still report news, not the new crop of Breitbart/freeper sites.)
I don't really see that. The "center" of public opinion on medical care insurance, Social Security, public infrastructure, and the like, is solidly left of any any of the major media pundit averages - an individual one, like Maddow, will sometimes get a little bit left of most people, but every entire organization like MSNBC or CNN or ABC is featuring a lineup of pundits who treat even complete "privatization" of Social Security as a legitimate option, for example. And Clinton is - if you pay attention - getting ready to raise the age limits on Social Security and reduce the benefits, not what the average American wants. The media people getting paid by wealthy conservative businessmen have moved to the right. The public hasn't changed that much.
