Whats the differance between Liberal, Democrat, Socialist, the Left, the Right etc?

Zombrex

Sand wrote:

Are you arguing that an idea is to be judged based on who advocates it?

I am not arguing for anything, I am telling you why right wing is often associated with ideas such as anti-immigration and conservative social opinions such as anti-abortion.

Sand wrote:

I was demonstrating that theories on race, eugenics and the engineering of society and culture is not the preserve of the right wing.

I am not sure why you feel u need to convince me, I agree with you.

Sand wrote:

Ive understood that people tended, certainly in modern times, to look outside the government for moral guidance - to various religions, with the resulting clash of church and state.

That is certainly true, but it is the government that makes the law with reguard to sex, decency, education etc. They are also the ones that distribute public funding, which is quite a torny issue in places like the US where funding for sex education programs in public schools is getting wrapped around programs that only teach abstence.

lili

Nuttzz wrote:

you're quiet correct, however a lot of people on this forum have no problem doing the same with the whole US nation.......

then the people of this forum are wrong. the flagrant proof is the last poll on bush popularity. i think that americans recovered their own way to think after we can call "a big propaganda" in favor of bush administration and its agenda.

Manic Moran

I don't know if 49% in favour is really a whopping endorsement. I know, it's pretty good by American standards, but American voters can rarely agree on anything.

NTM

lili

Manic Moran wrote:

I don't know if 49% in favour is really a whopping endorsement. I know, it's pretty good by American standards, but American voters can rarely agree on anything.

NTM

49%?
so high?

Manic Moran

As of the last poll I had seen, yes. It had shot up from 37% approval the poill prior. In between the two polls, you had the successful Iraqi elections, and a barrage of speeches from the administration.

NTM

rsynnott

I think the problem so many people seem to have in understanding this is that people want to divide everything up into "left wing" and "right wing", which clearly doesn't work. At least two dimensions would be more sensible.

Snickers Man

The nomenclature of left-wing and right-wing I believe emanates from the time of the French Revolution when the various parties in the French Parliament arranged themselves in such a way that the radical republicans of the time (the Jacobins etc) sat to the left of the speakers chair while the conservative royalists and clergy sat to the right with the rest occupying the centre ground in front of it.

And therein lies the problem. The intricacies of the political map have changed dramatically since the late eighteenth century and the various distinctions have come to mean different things in different countries, so it is very difficult to apply a universal label across political boundaries.

For example, in the late eighteenth century, 'Republican' meant something pretty specific around the globe. Republicans were anti monarchist, democratic and believed in free trade, individual liberty and an independent judiciary. They were anti-Catholic almost by axiom. Such people were Thomas Paine in England, Thomas Jefferson in America and Wolfe Tone in Ireland. Their politics were all pretty similar.

Scroll forward two hundred years and the successors of Jefferson in America are the likes of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld whereas the successors of Tone in Ireland are the Provos.

Both still call themselves Republican but the two things mean vastly different things in each country. American Republicans tend to be globalists, capitalists, fundamentalist Protestants. Irish Republicans are nationalists, socialists, Catholics.

Americans are also hugely restricted in their outlook. They can only think in terms of either/or. A third choice baffles and confuses them.

Democrat or Republican?
Coke or Pepsi?
McDonald's or Burger King?
With us or against us?

Even take a look at the information tools that American consultants charge you a fortune to learn from. Quadrants. Two dimensions. A combination of A and B. The likes of Gartner and Andersen's cannot possibly think in terms of a third factor. Stunted.

In Ireland, and indeed in most countries in Europe outside of Britain, the system is geared towards a wide range of choices and options. There are at least six parties in Ireland with realistic hopes of being part of a government next election. In America, if you're not in one or other of the Democrats or REpublicans, forget it.

The result is that there isn't really a left or right wing in America. All bodies of opinion have to be wedged into two huge parties that are basically very similar--loth though either would be to admit it. Left and right wing are really terms of mindless abuse that commentators throw at each other over there.

Ajnag

Mere abstract lables that divide the electorate and confuse the issues.

Imagine engineering or medicine practiced upon homogenous solutions as opposed to pragmatic approachs. Nuff said.

knightofround

IvaBigWun,

Getting back to the original topic, I'm a huge fan of the West Wing. I have all five seasons on DVD so far!

I think the easiest way to sum up American politics is as follows.

There are really only four parties in American politics. There's the Republicans, the Democrats, the Greens, and the Libertarians. The Greens and Libertarians exist in name only. In most elections they don't gain more than 1-5% of the vote, and they don't hold any seats in Congress. They are the "F-the-system" votes.

In general, Republicans believe that government should play an minor role in the economy. Traditionally, they support tax cuts and oppose heavier business regulation. Typically, they oppose expanding public retirement, healthcare, and education programs. Usually, they believe that foreign aid spending should be cut, and that military/NASA spending should be increased. They tend to support free trade. Republicans tend to get their votes from rural areas and relatively better-off citizens.

In general, Democrats believe that government should play an major role in the economy. Traditionally, they oppose tax cuts and support heavier business regulation. Typically, they support expanding public retirement, healthcare, and education programs. Usually, they believe that foreign aid spending should be increased, and that military/NASA spending should be cut. They tend to support fair trade. Democrats tend to get their votes from urban areas and relatively worse-off citizens.

In general, Republicans believe that the government should support conservative causes. Traditionally, they believe in gun ownership, faith-based initiatives, oppose campaign finance reform, and are anti-abortion. They tend to support unilateralism in foreign affirs. Republicans tend to monopolize the religiously active vote.

In general, Democrats believe that the government should support liberal causes. Traditionally, they believe in gun regulation, separation of church and state, support campaign finance reform, and are pro-choice. They tend to support multilateralism in foreign affairs. Democrats tend to monopolize the ethnic and sexual minority vote.

The Greens are the alternative party for liberals. The Libertarians are the alternative party for conservatives.

The United States does not have proportional representation. We have a winner-take-all-system. People are reluctant to vote for anything other than Democrat/Republican for fear of "wasting" their vote. For example, a strong believer of environmental protection might choose to vote Democrat instead of Green, because a Democrat is immensely preferable to a Republican, even if it isn't that great. It's all about voting for the lesser of two evils.

All of the stuff above are generalizations. A Republican president passed a prescription drug plan. A Democratic president passed a free trade agreement. However, I would argue that my generalizations are very accurate generalizations. The Republican and Democratic parties are the most polarized they've ever been before in recorded history. There are very few "liberal Republicans" and very few "conservative Democrats".

knightofround

Of course, a couple issues are foggy given the current political climate. Practically nobody, not even Democrats, are in favor of cutting military spending right now. Practically nobody, not even Republicans, are in favor of reducing social security/healcare spending right now.

But in the West Wing world, those two issues are up for grabs.

Ajnag

The american system is an effective duopoly, predicated upon the false belife that a vote for a third party is wasted. Ironically the country that espouse's free market economic's and the importance of competion suffers from a political system that lacks effective competition denying the us innovation and choice in politics. Part of the duopolys success has been the ability to asimilate alternative belifes in to their respective partys based on the perception of left/right politics even if policy reflects none of these individual belifes on the whole.

Further to the maintainence of the status quo is the abuse of the left/right axis to encourage engagement only on the basis of antagonism instead of constructive debate. Just have a look at the so called blogosphere to see evidense of this.

But one of the best examples I can think of, Is that the duopoly sometimes co-operates to protect mutual intrests against potential competitors, this was evident in way both partys have obstructed third partys from partaking in debates on national tv.

Do's the west wing reflect that?

Ajnag

Ajnag wrote:

The american system is an effective duopoly, predicated upon the false belife that a vote for a third party is wasted. Ironically the country that espouse's free market economic's and the importance of competion suffers from a political system that lacks effective competition denying the us innovation and choice in politics. Part of the duopolys success has been the ability to asimilate alternative belifes in to their respective partys based on the perception of left/right politics even if policy reflects none of these individual belifes on the whole.

Further to the maintainence of the status quo is the abuse of the left/right axis to encourage engagement only on the basis of antagonism instead of constructive debate. Just have a look at the so called blogosphere to see evidense of this.

But one of the best examples I can think of, Is that the duopoly sometimes co-operates to protect mutual intrests against potential competitors, this was evident in way both partys have obstructed third partys from partaking in debates on national tv.

Do's the west wing reflect that?

I think it has a lot more to do with the majoritarian electoral system.

knightofround

Ajnag,

I would argue that the belief that third-party votes are a waste is a REAL belief, NOT a false one. Winner-take-all systems leads to two candidates.

For example, I prefer the Green Party to the Democratic Party. However, in the previous election I did not vote Green because they did not stand a chance at winning. My vote would have had virtually the same impact as a no-vote. (Unless in that state they have a 10% cutoff point for government funded electioneering) However, a vote for a Democratic ticket might have a chance at beating a Republican ticket. My votes did not have as big of an impact upon the system as I liked, but at least they weren't wasted.

I would hardly blame the duopoly for the current election system. They are a product of the system, not the producer of the system. The left/right axis has nothing to do with this. I would argue that antagonism is a product of cultural and media bias, because European "blogospheres" are just as vicious and antagonistic as US "blogospheres".

For the record, the duopoly did not obstruct third parties from partaking in the debates on national TV. The Democrat party obstructed the Green party making it to the debates, and the Republican party obstructed the Libertarian party making it to the debates. I believe that it was a sign of Republican weakness that Perot got into the debates in the Bush/Clinton election.

The West Wing does address this issue. It shows the Bartlett administration trying to lock out an Independent from making it to the public debates. It articulates both sides of the argument more concisely and succinctly than I ever could.

Ajnag

I would argue that the belief that third-party votes are a waste is a REAL belief, NOT a false one. Winner-take-all systems leads to two candidates.

Then why is it other democracys dont decompose in to binary systems?

For example, I prefer the Green Party to the Democratic Party. However, in the previous election I did not vote Green because they did not stand a chance at winning. My vote would have had virtually the same impact as a no-vote. (Unless in that state they have a 10% cutoff point for government funded electioneering) However, a vote for a Democratic ticket might have a chance at beating a Republican ticket. My votes did not have as big of an impact upon the system as I liked, but at least they weren't wasted.

Afaik the federal cut off is 5% to get funding. Also in any case the democratic ticket lost last time and fear of losing a vote made no difference in the outcome.
Tactical voting will always be an inherant part of democratic systems, but the Idea of a vote wasted is a bit of a myth imo. A real wasted vote is that of non participation, the dem's lost more votes to those who didnt get of their ass then those who voted alternative. Let's not mince our words here, votes for nadir never lost crap, lazy dem's who didnt get off their ass gave it away(for the sake of this debate we'll ignore voting system issues ). 5% is a realistic figure to achieve as well, were it not for pessimistic letharghic views this figure could have been a achieved some time ago, this is an Ironic contrast to the american "can do" attitude.

Also we'll have to draw the distinction between presidential elections and congressional ones. Sadly the wasted vote myth permates both when in fact both are entirely different events. Because congressional elections occur on the state level, the possiblity's are entirely different. Sadly we'll see people playing the duopoly card again this year, when in fact these are the best oppertunity for getting third partys in govt.

However...It's also sad to note that the third partys are useless off season. The last few years have been the best oppertunity to capitalise on american dis-affection with the system, yet nowhere to be seen have been any of the third partys.

I would hardly blame the duopoly for the current election system. They are a product of the system, not the producer of the system. The left/right axis has nothing to do with this. I would argue that antagonism is a product of cultural and media bias, because European "blogospheres" are just as vicious and antagonistic as US "blogospheres".

The duopoly maintains the system. As democratic systems go, Americas was incredibly designed, with fore thought given to avoiding domination of the system. It may be the case that the duopoly is the product of the civil war but I havent looked into that one much.

Also the left/right axis has everything to do with things as they currently are. No where else in developed democracys do you see left/right used as derrogatery or divisionary terms as you see in america. Your right in that the antagonism is a product of cultural and media bias, However I dont see why you wouldnt include the duopoly as a point of origin as well. It's in their intrest to divide the electorate in such a way. You are also correct that we have no less vitrol in our politics over here, BUT and this is the crucial difference:

If you attempted to debate over here by using such general and divisive lables you would be castigated for not debating the Issue itself. Calling lables do's not pass as debate in most of the rational world.

For the record, the duopoly did not obstruct third parties from partaking in the debates on national TV. The Democrat party obstructed the Green party making it to the debates, and the Republican party obstructed the Libertarian party making it to the debates. I believe that it was a sign of Republican weakness that Perot got into the debates in the Bush/Clinton election.

That's a contradictory statement, You say they did not obstruct third partys and then show exactly how they did. Both partys acted in a simular way to the detriment of third partys. This is as good an example as exist's of the duopoly crippling the democratic market in their favor.

The West Wing does address this issue. It shows the Bartlett administration trying to lock out an Independent from making it to the public debates. It articulates both sides of the argument more concisely and succinctly than I ever could.

Cool, Didnt know that now, I suppose I should be watching, just that It's far too idealised for me. Were the west wing closer to reality, their hardly be a single character approaching likeable

Manic Moran

I have been informed that one of the esteemed congresscritters from Vermont is officialy a member of the Socialist party. Only third-party person on the Hill.

Go figure.

NTM

knightofround

Ajnag,

BOTH political parties lose votes due to non-participation. Theoretically, the Democrats might lose more because non-participators are typically poor. However, they are also typically culturally conservative: http://typology.people-press.org/

I believe that it is unfair to blame the duopoly for the system. The system created the duopoly, which created the left/right axis, which created the system, which created the duopoly. If there is a point of origin, I would argue that it is our cultural method of voting: winner-take-all. We are different from European democracies precisely because we do not have proportional representations. Winner-take-all systems give established candidates (duopoly, incumbents) disportionately greater bargining power over unestablished candidates. As an interesting side-note, I am no constitutional scholar but I don't think there's anything in the constition that prohibits proportional voting. It's a tradition that we have, that most other Democracies don't.

I would hardly say that America holds a monopoly on political labeling. I look at the UK's question time, I look at the Indian and Korean parliaments, I look at the South American democracies, and I believe that the love is spread equally around.

I do think it is worse in America because the ideological wedge between the two parties is so large. It is difficult to discuss an issue when all the parties share nothing in common. I believe that proportional representation brings a degree of moderation to democracy if third parties can act as a buffer between the prominent right/left parties. But again, I don't think we should blame the DUOPOLY for the current state of affairs. It's simply the way our system is designed. Europeans were able to learn from our mistakes when they made their transitions to Democracy.

My comment about Dem/Rep parties blocking out Green/Lib parties is not contradictory. I would argue that the REASON why they do it is because the way our Democracy is DESIGNED. That is different than blaming it on the duopoly. Even if we blew up the Democratic and Republican parties today, I believe that a similar two-party system would rise from its ashes. (That's pretty much what happened in the past; read up on the Whigs)

As far as the West Wing goes, I think they have plenty of likeable characters. I love Sam because of his idealism, and Donna/Josh for their hilarity. I think Bartlett is likable, but that's probably because the character matches my political philosophy like a glove.

I would never equate the West Wing to reality though. It's like historical fiction.

onedmc

knightofround wrote:

IvaBigWun,

Getting back to the original topic, I'm a huge fan of the West Wing. I have all five seasons on DVD so far!

I think the easiest way to sum up American politics is as follows.

There are really....

Is not the fundamental difference the fact the the US is a presidential system not a parlamentary. Most of the power is with a single entity whereas in europe a broader concensus is require, I think this drives the whole system and political outlook.

?

Akrasia

On topic, The simplest way to decide levt versus right wing ideologies is that broadly speaking, left wing people believe the economy only exists to provide for the people of a country or the planet, while right wing people seem to believe that the people exist in order to build a strong economy.
All the other criteria are simply different tactics that are chosen to further the same end.

In my opinion the 'left versus right' debate confuses the real debate which should be 'liberty versus totalitarianism'

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

In my opinion the 'left versus right' debate confuses the real debate which should be 'liberty versus totalitarianism'

Umm... And in the US, which is which, do you think? Whichever way you answer, there will be arguments made to the contrary.

NTM

Húrin

I don't believe that there is any difference between the US Democrats and Republicans on the important issues. (gay marriage isn't an important issue)

Hobbes wrote:

For example Liberals are for gun control which would imply restricting personal behaviour.

It looks to me like none of the parties in Ireland want to liberalise (loosen up) the gun laws.

rsynnott

H&#250 wrote: »

I don't believe that there is any difference between the US Democrats and Republicans on the important issues. (gay marriage isn't an important issue)

That's an opinion. What would you think are important social issues?

Manic Moran

H&#250 wrote: »

It looks to me like none of the parties in Ireland want to liberalise (loosen up) the gun laws.

No, but they seem to generally be satisfied with keeping the laws and policies a lot looser than they were between the 1970s and 2004. (Or whenever it was that the Garda firearms policy was overturned, maybe 2003?)

This is a little off-topic though. Plenty of threads about the proposed new firearms code on the Shooting forum. The comment you quote referred to the American Liberals, which make up the vast predominant group of anti-firearm legislation supporters. Not all do, but most are.

NTM

knightofround

onedmc,

Yes, as far as the structure of our system goes, that's a big difference. If you read the entire post you would've seen me discuss it, but I understand that it was long.

Húrin,
I believe that you are wrong. In the congress, party-line voting is stronger than ever before in recorded history. The only things that get passed easily are appointments and appropiation bills. (And even those two are more threatened today than they were a decade ago)

Democrats and Republicans disagree on abortion, gun control, the existence of NASA, the role of the UN, free trade, social security, campaign finance reform, the department of education, and tax policy. I believe all of those issues are important ones, and if you don't think those are important I'd like to know what you consider IS important.

The only areas where I see the two parties mostly agreeing is in matters of national security, the FEC, and redistricting.