Left is Right

It was mentioned in another thread that in the U.S. "liberal" has become almost synonomous with "socialist". I think that is just a reflection of the deep polarity of American politics, a result of a most curious and rare situation wherein there are only two political parties. This instills in the American mind a dichotomy, a "with us or against us" mindset that was also proclaimed by the President last year and so angered the people of other nations that have a multi-party system and do not understand the dualistic nature of American politics or society.

Click to expand...

PC..............(Hi BTW), I'm going to disagree with you here. I suspect without having a formal proof that most Americans do not associate "liberal" with "socialism" nor "conservative" with "fascism". Now having said that, there are times when politicians promote ideas which could fall within either extreme political system. Further, there are more then two political parties in the US, however, I acknowledge that the other parties do not generate anywhere as near the support of the two main parties.

Originally posted by John Burns:
Dish - the Democrats are more fiscally conservative than the Republicans now - look at the deficit - figure that one out. And the Republicans who always wanted Big Brother out of their affairs now have the right to search without warrants, and are considering a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Gay marriage - rather than let the states handle it. Go figure - who knows what is left or right - liberal or conservative in this great country U S of A!

Click to expand...

I think the confusion may be assuming that Democrat equals liberal and Republican equals conservative. Surely you are aware that there are very conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Identifying politicians by their party doesn't tell you anything about their (general) political beliefs.

Back at you PC..............We have one self-admitted socialist here (nothing negative to be read in that statement), DN, (and I suspect AlbertB , just kidding). If you care, look up the true meaning of liberal and you will find that it does not equate at all with the socialist philosophy. Two completely different schools of political thought really.

Originally posted by pyritechips:
Maybe, but it isn't "natural" to have only 2 opposing philosophies. Human philosophy is a pluralism; to believe that there are only 2 that deserve representation is diametrically opposed to the concept of "democracy". And as far as that is concerned, to some foreigners, in America there is only the "near-right" and the "far-right". To many people, there is no "central" or "left" in American politics. It's all relative.

Click to expand...

At the risk of being labeled the constant finger in the eye, it isn't a democracy its a republic. Republics tend to have less political parties because multiple parties can rarely generate enough support to constitute a majority. By way of example, see Israel.

BTW, in American history there have been times of multiple parties. Generally, they were absorbed into what we now have as the main two parties. See above post.

Another point. There is tremendous variation within each party. I've meet some conservative Democrats that make conservative Republicans look like Ted Kennedy.

CF........I understand your position as well as the others. My point, obviously not well made, is that our form of political system (republic) does not lend itself well to a multiple party system. That said, no one has offered a third political party which has caught the support of 25% of the voting public. Ross Perot was the last third party candidate to have more then a negligible number of supporters. The reality is that he was running on a platform which was "anyone but these two". No third party has come about which offers a comprehensive alternative to the two major parties. The third parties tend to be one trick pony's which are not going to garner long term support (and money).

I blame it on a lack of imagination on the part of potential political leaders. No true alternatives to the current crop of Dems and Repubs.

Eggy.........Wait a minute. I started a thread that suggested that maybe people should be required to at least know the names of candidates, their position on issues and the party they represent. I was, politely, crucified (okay I exaggerate) but I was poo poo'd. You, son, speak heresy, a knowledgeable voting public, what a concept!

Originally posted by pyritechips:
I hope you don't mean me. I'm not offended, just puzzled.

Click to expand...

Same with me. I can't understand how people can live in a country that has snow up to their butts nine months out of a year.

Originally posted by ComputerFix:
GB,

Also found in that other thread (maybe I can find it), I offered up the idea that, despite being a Representative Republic, we like the idea of majority rules. With 2 major candidates, you can, relatively speaking, do that. With three or more, you get winners with just more votes than any one other candidate.

People are concerned about Bush only having a 48% approval rating? Imagine if our President ran in a "real" 5 person race. We could well have a leader that only 20.1% of the votors wanted, with 79.9% not wanting that person! THAT is a real popularity rating issue.

You may blame it on a lack of imagination on political hopefuls, but I still hold us to creating it to be this way. As you said, no third has had more than 25% of the voting public....so would that not be a statement as to how the people feel on the matter?

Click to expand...

As to paragraph number two, we call that England. You vote for a party, the party hacks decide who shall lead. (To the British members do not be offended by "hack")

You're right it is a statement on how the people feel. My point is that no charismatic political leader has stepped forward with a fully developed platform for and of a third party. Again, we have had only one trick pony's.

Originally posted by AlbertB:
I'm genuinely surprised that you should think this a bad thing as it gave the world first Thatcher and now Blair, two Brits who I believe you do have a soft spot for?

Click to expand...

AlbertB............If I gave the impression that I thought it a bad thing I truly apologize. The US system isn't better or worse, just different. Yes, Thatcher and Blair are my heroes. (I just said that so I could imagine Paq going apoplectic, probably spitting up his wine )