What future for the right in a social democratic America ?

BenjAii

Playing with our imagination a little, it is not hard to assume that the US Presidency, Congress & Senate will all be in Democratic hands in a few weeks.

Its also easy to see that we are all (US included) living through some epoch making times. It is likely in the US huge challenges will soon have to be faced head on; alternative energy & the post-petroleum world and universal healthcare, to name 2, amidst economic turmoil & war.

How this is dealt with will be decided & shaped, possibly for a generation, by a progressive social democratic agenda.

Where does this leave the right in America & how will it address this new reality ?

Already it seems split into 2 wings; On the one-hand, moderate, old-fashioned conservatives who seem cut off and disenchanted with much of what modern conservatism and on the other, the Sarah Palin faction; unabashedly populist & religious, but very unattractive to the other type of conservatives.

If the next American administration brings America to the norms of European social democracy - where now for the American right after the election ?

Manic Moran

How this is dealt with will be decided & shaped, possibly for a generation, by a progressive social democratic agenda

A little unreaslistic, don't you think?

There's going to be a triumvirate for the first two years, all but guaranteed. The next two years are likely. I am not going to put any money at all today against the concept that after 2012, something goes Red, be it the Senate, House or the White House. I certainly won't go anywhere near talking about a generation.

Even at that, there's going to be some dispute as to just how 'social' it's going to be. The Democrats, just like the Republicans, are not a homogenous voting block. Remember that even Democrats are somewhat to the right of the international political spectrum. The Blue Dogs may well resist some of the ideas from the further left as what plays well in Blue San Francisco (And Europe) may not play quite as well in Blue Dog Billings. Just because a district chooses the local Democratic Candidate does not mean that they share a lot in common with social democrat ideals. After all, a Montana Democrat who proudly proclaims "I have more guns than I need, and fewer than I want" (Schweitzer) is obviously cut from different social cloth than, say, the far more public Pelosi.

There will be some legislative movement to the socialised side of things, absolutely. But I would not mistake this for saying that the perspective of the American Voter has moved far to the left just because they're voting Blue these days.

NTM

Black Swan

BenjAii wrote: »

How this is dealt with will be decided & shaped, possibly for a generation, by a progressive social democratic agenda.

How many years in this "generation?"

"The average time between two generations of a species, about 35 years for humans." Source: Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 HarperCollins.

I cannot recall any US political party holding control of both houses of the Congress or the Executive for anytime remotely near this number.

brianthebard

BenjAii wrote: »

If the next American administration brings America to the norms of European social democracy - where now for the American right after the election ?

It is easy for us to assume that the US would want or benefit from such policies, and that they are merely too unevolved to know what's good for them, but where is the evidence that the citizens of the fifty states are actually interested in a swing to social democracy? After all there is already a social democrat party, and I'm sure like the (probably even smaller) socialist party they are running a presidential campaign, but do we seriously believe they are contenders? Another point, although the Dems are usually said to be left wing (generally by republicans in an insulting tone) they are nowhere near the European left wing (imo at least). So what is going to cause the Dems to lurch to the left and why should be seen as a good thing, since parties changing direction is usually seen as flip flopping or a sign or weakness within the party ideology?

Sand

Jesus, only a few years ago they were talking in terms of a glorious Republican Reich for a thousand years, or something along those lines. Now suddenly the US is going to outdo Castro.

brianthebard

You didn't have the godwin the thread sand....

Sand

Didnt I? Didnt I?

mumhaabu

The Democrats are about as Social as I am a Muslim, they would be even more right than Thatcher, however they are not Right enough and are fond of hippy liberal types.

BenjAii

Despite others posters skepticism, I think the chances are this will happen.

Granted in 2 years time they might lose the Senate/Congress again, but assume they have it for stretch of 4 years.

The point is the next 4 years will be crunch time for so many issues that will be decided, they may effectively be decided for a generation. And they will all likely be decided on social democratic/progressive terms.

The UK Conservatives have finally had to come to term with Britain as a social democratic country & adapt under Cameron, I think the US right may need to do the same.

The US is already in line with Europe on things like income redistribution far more than it likes to admit, if you add universal healthcare & a push for green energy, wheres the difference from mainstream European social democracy ?

Hobbes

Am I the only one who sees the Irony in McCain claiming Obama is a socialist and then he goes and helps nationalise the US banking system?

eamonnm79

Dont forget Obama also called on the bailout to be backed almost immediately too.

He is supposed to be the most left wing senator of all.

The only left of centre in america, is the tiny nader and green movements.

If there are moves to the left by Obama, then there will be huge corporate outrage in the form of media outrage.

This joe the plumber thing is brilliant.

Joe is worried that one day his american dream will come true and he will be in the top 5% and have to pay more tax in an Obama government.

The greatest lie that the americans buy is that they are going to get the american dream if they just work hard.

Come back to reality joe!
Im not saying it doesnt happen, it does, but it doesnt happen as often as joe is led to believe it does.
And if someone told him that they would be branded unamerican.

Trojan

I think the refrain from Main St at the moment is "Pay your taxes, Joe".

There are so many differences between Republicans and Democrats (or the US far-right and the US centre-right as I see it). What about all the similarities? Do they ever get discussed? They have plenty in common, I think after the election might be a good time to start concentrating on what holds the country together.

lostexpectation

socialis!t don't make me laugh

Manic Moran

Trojan wrote: »

I think the refrain from Main St at the moment is "Pay your taxes, Joe".

FWIW, he very quickly received donations to pay off his tax bill. He declined them on the basis that he thinks he should pay off his own debts, thank you very much.

NTM

Trojan

Manic Moran wrote: »

FWIW, he very quickly received donations to pay off his tax bill. He declined them on the basis that he thinks he should pay off his own debts, thank you very much.

NTM

Fair play to him. Hope the wonderful Mrs Palin remembers to give her Saks Fifth Avenue gear to charity come December.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote: »

FWIW, he very quickly received donations to pay off his tax bill. He declined them on the basis that he thinks he should pay off his own debts, thank you very much.

NTM

Right... lets not forget Joes story of being hit by Obamas tax/health hits is total BS as well. Did anyone donate him a plumbers license?

Hobbes

eamonnm79 wrote: »

Dont forget Obama also called on the bailout to be backed almost immediately too.

Is isnt the one calling the other a socialist though.

BenjAii

Hobbes wrote: »

Is isnt the one calling the other a socialist though.

by supporting the bailout they're both for "socialism for the rich" ...

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote: »

Did anyone donate him a plumbers license?

Did anyone find out once or for all if he had correctly filed his apprenticeship papers? The union of plumbers (Not one of whose officers apparently is on the authorised plumbers list either) said he never completed the process, but some other websites are claiming that according to Ohio records, he had. Hitting Google swamps me with reports dated Oct 16 and 17, but little afterwards other than blogs.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Did anyone find out once or for all if he had correctly filed his apprenticeship papers?

For Sam or Joe?

Manic Moran

Either/Or, I guess. You're allowed use legal aliases in the US, as long as they're on record.

Use of middle names is not particularly unusual. It was about ten years before I discovered that my uncle had been using his middle name in preference to his given name.

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Did anyone find out once or for all if he had correctly filed his apprenticeship papers?

From the horses mouth as I recall is he doesn't have a license however where he lives and works it is not required for him to do so.

dan_d

Americans have been flinging the word socialism around like a curse lately. It seems to them to stand for a system that's outdated, under which they would have to live in substandard conditions while everyone else but themselves gets Government handouts.
What amazes me is that they seem to be so entirely out for themselves as indivduals.The American Dream is one thing, but god forbid any of the taxes they pay might go into a welfare or health system to benefit the country at large.It's like children who don't share for fear that someone else will get something that they don't have/get. While our systems in Europe and Ireland are far,far from perfect, at least if things go really bad, there's a basic system there. In the US, once you're in trouble financially/job, you have very little hope in most states. Part of the reason places like SF have so many homeless, is that because California is one of the few states that has a basic (very) welfare system.
What is even more amazing is that they frequently use the word "socialism" in relation to Europe and Russia. I was in the states a couple of weeks ago, on the west coast and I did actually hear statements such as "If we let a socialist into government,we'll have to pay 8$/gallon for gas like they do in Europe" or "A socialist like Obama will make us all pay taxes towards healthcare, but we'll end up with a health system like Russia's."Completely sweeping statements with no basis for truth whatsoever, from totally ordinary people.(Also missing the point that we pay per litre in Europe, and our cars do far more miles to the gallon than most American cars do).It never ceases to amaze that a country which claims to be at the forefront of modern life and a leader in most major world industries, has such a large percentage of population with incredibly narrow,xenophobic and uninformed opinions.
The irony of course is that neither Obama nor McCain are exactly socialists.Everyone in America wants "change"...most Americans however, get very nervous if there's any actual likelihood that any major "change" will become a reality.

Manic Moran

Interesting comment from Biden a couple of days ago, about Obama meeting a 'test' in the first six months of the Presidency. Of course, the right is taking it a little out of context and spinning it to their own merits, but the true context is a little more applicable to this thread.

Basically Biden was talking to a bunch of people further to the left than most in the Democratic establishment, and was warning them that when this test occurred, Obama would need their support, even if they didn't really approve of his actions. It's being viewed as an indicator that the Obama presidency is not going to be as far to the left as many of the Democratic fans would like, and it is likely to be a bit more centrist.

I personally see this as a good thing.

NTM

Sand

Change is vague dan_d. People wanting "change" doesnt mean there is any concensus at all on what that change should be. The genius of campaigning on a manifesto of change is that its easy to fufill and youre not promising anything concrete.

Americans have been flinging the word socialism around like a curse lately. It seems to them to stand for a system that's outdated, under which they would have to live in substandard conditions while everyone else but themselves gets Government handouts.

Socialism is generally associated with economic failure, dependance and stagnation however - let alone political oppression. Usually because the champions of socialism, like the USSR, North Korea, China, Cuba and so on...well, the Berlin Wall was built to stop people from fleeing the socialist paradise as opposed to stopping people from entering it.

You might argue that view is uninformed and practically propaganda, but others might argue the popular view that people without health insurance in the US are left to die on the side of the streets, or at best harvested for organs to benefit the super rich, is also uninformed and practically propaganda.

brianthebard

Its funny to hear you talk about economic stagnation and failure given what the neo liberal system has being going through in the past months and years. As for oppression, there are different forms, but ultimately the same goal.

tolosenc

dan_d wrote: »

What amazes me is that they seem to be so entirely out for themselves as indivduals

.

What exactly is so astonishing/shocking about someone putting themselves first, getting what they want, looking after themselves before anyone else. Pretty basic human nature, imo.

dan_d wrote: »

The American Dream is one thing, but god forbid any of the taxes they pay might go into a welfare or health system to benefit the country at large.

We pay taxes towards these services. A black hole would be less effective in getting rid of those tax euros. In that sense, why the hell would they want their tax dollars wasted on something like that.

And benefit the country at large? Sorry, but last time I checked, the majority of people were employed and healthy.

dan_d wrote: »

Part of the reason places like SF have so many homeless, is that because California is one of the few states that has a basic (very) welfare system.

99.5% of why they're there is the climate. Almost everywhere else is too hot in summer, too cold in winter, too wet in spring and autumn, or a combination of the three.

dan_d wrote: »

What is even more amazing is that they frequently use the word "socialism" in relation to Europe and Russia.

Again, why the amazement? These are places one does associate with leftism...

dan_d wrote: »

Completely sweeping statements with no basis for truth whatsoever, from totally ordinary people.(Also missing the point that we pay per litre in Europe

Sources for either of those (you may have overheard them though, in which case: no bother), but neither of them miss the point.

Ireland /= Europe. We have low petrol prices by comparison to the continent.
And Americans, quite rightly, won't be taxed for a health institution whose European counterparts are largely jokes.

dan_d wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze that a country which claims to be at the forefront of modern life and a leader in most major world industries, has such a large percentage of population with incredibly narrow,xenophobic and uninformed opinions.

You seem to present quite a one sided view, are your opinions not equally narrow and uninformed. Just because they're different to yours doesn't mean they're wrong.

Sand

Its funny to hear you talk about economic stagnation and failure given what the neo liberal system has being going through in the past months and years. As for oppression, there are different forms, but ultimately the same goal.

Whatever you might say about neo liberalism, its not stagnant. The last few months and years are testement to that. And whereas a dip in the economic growth and potential of the neo liberal system can rightly be described as failure, in socialism its described as "business as usual".

Manic Moran

obl wrote: »

.
99.5% of why they're there is the climate. Almost everywhere else is too hot in summer, too cold in winter, too wet in spring and autumn, or a combination of the three.

As I type, at 5:30pm it's 83F or 28 degrees C here. Not bad for the end of October, is it? Beats camping in Chicago.

Of course, San Francisco does have a valid way of dealing with the homeless: Ship them somewhere else. The Homeward Bound program provides homeless types with one-way bus tickets.

NTM

BenjAii

obl wrote: »

.

And Americans, quite rightly, won't be taxed for a health institution whose European counterparts are largely jokes.

.

Except exactly the opposite is true.

Americans spend twice as much of their GDP on healthcare, as say France or Germany, and a third of them don't even have access to it.

Its ridiculous to hold up American healthcare as something to be proud of, despite its faults, its obvious that Europe's is far superior.

Both McCain & Obama acknowledge their system is broken and needs radical fixing.

Black Swan

obl wrote: »

And Americans, quite rightly, won't be taxed for a health institution whose European counterparts are largely jokes.

Not sure what you mean by this? You are suggesting that the American health care system is more effective than "European counterparts?" Well, I do not believe the statistics will support your position that American health care is superior for its population. For example, one indicator of a population's health care is infant mortality rate, and America ranks below many European nations. For example:

Malta 3.8
Czech Republic 3.9
Germany 4.2
France 4.2
Spain 4.3
Slovenia 4.4
Denmark 4.5
Austria 4.5
Liechtenstein 4.6
Luxembourg 4.7
Netherlands 4.9
Portugal 4.9
Gibraltar 5.0
UK 5.0
Ireland 5.2
Greece 5.3
San Marino 5.5
Italy 5.7
United States 6.4

This means that for the general population, it's safer for a baby to be born in all the countries listed above from Malta to Italy (including Ireland), than in the USA.

What's really interesting is to compare the two North American countries' infant mortality rates, Canada with socialized medicine, and the privatized for profit system in the USA.

Canada 4.6
USA 6.4

So, for the general population, it's safer for a baby to be born in socialized medicine Canada, than in the for-profit USA.

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934744.html

The poorer rate in the USA may be due to the fact that a large percentage of the USA population is without health care insurance?

"Both the percentage and the number of people without health insurance increased in 2006. The percentage without health insurance increased from 15.3 percent in 2005 to 15.8 percent in 2006, and the number increased from 44.8 million to 47.0 million."

Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf