NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you feel the U.S.' UN Catagory would be?

New York Times Democracy - A democracy in which the media heavily influences who gets elected

New York Times democracy or Inoffensive Centrist Democracy. A lot of civil and political rights as well as a strong economy. Right-wing Utopia might fit better from an foreigners view of the USA.

I, being one of the people not brainwashed by the media, clearly view the media as those who decide who wins the election. If they like the candidate's corupt moneyoffering, then they support him.

Rogue State.

Rogue State.

hmmmmm...interesting

Rogue State.

hmmmmm...interesting

Is that a category here?

No

Capitalizt

No

Most of the time U.N isn't a catagory in America

The US would probably be a New York Times Democracy, in reality it is a Democratic Republic though.

True, the US media is hideous - but it's more in the pocket of the politicians than the other way about. (When your media's a major capitalist concern, it's inevitably going to lean to corporate interests and poll-group superficiality...)
Capitalizt, pretty much. Varies a little from state to state.

Using the 3D political spectrum for this game . . .

- Very high economic freedom

- Low political freedom

- Medium to high personal freedom

Results in . . . Compulsory Consumerist State or Benevolent Dictatorship.

My personal opinion is the former.

It might not be an available categorie but: Capitalistic, imperial, elective monarchy might just work.

Jim

I would say Iron Fist Consumerists. Maybe a Right-wing Utopia might also apply, or even a Capitalizt Paradise

- Low political freedom
How does this apply?

- Low political freedom
How does this apply?
I think maybe because there is not a lot of dissent permitted against the current admin in terms of political satire and protesting, as well as the fact that the election wasn't entirely fair and democratic. It could also be because of the rising right-wing/fascist tendancies of the admin.

- Low political freedom
How does this apply?

for one - the supreme court being alowed to stop a vote recount that would have probably changed the outcome.

The long-dead nation of America was a right-wing utopia.

- Low political freedom
How does this apply?
The fact that the modern American voter's choice in candidates is akin to that of a Russian during the 1980s. "A communist, a communist, a slightly different sort of communist, and a fascist." The differences between Republicans and Democrats are no greater than the differences between the various flavours of communism in 1980s USSR. There is no real choice on offer. Thus, low political freedoms, despite the "one man, one vote" system.

How does this apply?

Two-party state, parties extremely similar. Heavy corporate sponsorship of parties. Large amounts of money required to get elected. Democratic but unrepresentative; politicians tend to retain positions; very low voter turnout.

The US would probably be a New York Times Democracy, in reality it is a Democratic Republic though.

The CIA consider it to be a "Constitution-based federal republic; (with a) strong democratic tradition"

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/us.html

How does this apply?

Two-party state, parties extremely similar. Heavy corporate sponsorship of parties. Large amounts of money required to get elected. Democratic but unrepresentative; politicians tend to retain positions; very low voter turnout.

Hmn, that is a very good point. I had forgot about it because it's so commonplace now here in North America -- well, at least the corruption and low voter turn out.

Two-party state, parties extremely similar. Heavy corporate sponsorship of parties. Large amounts of money required to get elected. Democratic but unrepresentative; politicians tend to retain positions; very low voter turnout.
So is it safe to say that almost every industrialized democracy has low amounts of political freedoms?

Two-party state, parties extremely similar. Heavy corporate sponsorship of parties. Large amounts of money required to get elected. Democratic but unrepresentative; politicians tend to retain positions; very low voter turnout.
So is it safe to say that almost every industrialized democracy has low amounts of political freedoms?
Those with only two ideologically near-identical parties sitting in the primary legislative assembly, in effect, yes.

Is "fat bastards" a category?

New York Times Democracy...where the media influences who gets elected? Never thought of that for a meaning, but that suits us to a dot. CNN's political analysts are like ESPN's sports experts, making PREDICTIONS on who is going to win the primaries and such...

The US Economy is frightening. Political freedoms are extensive but abused...civil rights are excellent. I'd say a capitalizt, except we've got a fair safety net, or a corporate bordello...but again, a fair safety net.

Two-party state, parties extremely similar. Heavy corporate sponsorship of parties. Large amounts of money required to get elected. Democratic but unrepresentative; politicians tend to retain positions; very low voter turnout.
So is it safe to say that almost every industrialized democracy has low amounts of political freedoms?
Those with only two ideologically near-identical parties sitting in the primary legislative assembly, in effect, yes.

Ideologically near-identical to foreigners, maybe.

In the US, however, we see them as worlds apart. It has to be taken relatively. The US is much more conservative than almost every part of Europe. Abortion, gun control, gay marraige, affirmative action, taxes, Iraq, Multilateralism vs Unilaterialism, free trade vs protectionism, the death penalty, drilling for oil in Alaska, school vouchers, and faith-based education, just to name a few. From over here across the pond, there dosen't really look like much of a difference between Labour and Tories, or French Center-Rightists (Chirac's party) and the Socialists. That dosen't mean that there isn't - there is a difference between them. They just seem ideologically close to us. No major parties in Europe would do things economically like someone in America wouldn't hesistate to do, and vice versa. (And most of the times, socially too).

And not everyone toes the party line. People elect who they think will be the best representative of their cause, of course. Thats why you have Zell Miller in Georgia who's more conservative than Lincoln Chafee, a Republican from Rhode Island. 2 Parties? Yes, but they're not as narrow as parties generally are elsewhere.

Speaking of parties, what would you consider Sweden or Japan, where the ruling parties haven't lost the executive seat for an extremely long time? (Japan's party's lost theirs for 2 years and promptly got it back, having never lost it since the end of WW2).

In Japan, again, I get the feeling that the parties are broadly similar, not wishing to be seen to be too different from the competition. I guess that may be a reflection of the conformist culture, at least, that is how it seems from outside. Insiders may have a different view of it, of course.

Not really sure about Sweden. I have never read much about the way they do things over there.

The LDP may be one of the longest in power parties in a modern style democracy. However, one must remember that the various factions of the LDP have been virtual parties in themselves. Many of the parties split off from the LDP after the socialists victory were actually factions.
In addition, most of the parties and factions are not ideological, but power and influance based.

Much of this comes from the strong bueaucracy, a lingering effect of the Meiji and even Edo goveenments.

(The US occupation , IMHO, failed in it*s attempot to install a democratic tradition and rule of law here. The attempt was short circuted by the Korean war.)

Speaking of Japan and America's U.N status. Pop quiz everyone - What is the only country in the world that has used Nuclear weapons as a means of attack? (clue - it is not in the middle east)

Speaking of Japan and America's U.N status. Pop quiz everyone - What is the only country in the world that has used Nuclear weapons as a means of attack? (clue - it is not in the middle east)

America. So what?

More importantly, what was the result?
:P

A few million Japanese and American lives saved (net) that would have been lost in the invasion?

So what?? The argument of weapons of mass destuction is moot. Instaling democracy is a non issue (America threatened the Turkish government with a repeat of the American led military coup if the democraticaly elected government did not allow the U.S army to use it's country as a base for attack). So what seems to be America's attitude to alot of things. Hence the wonderful (and hoped repeated) events of september the fantastic 11th.

A few million Japanese and American lives saved (net) that would have been lost in the invasion?
No. :roll:

Read up on events in Manchuria in mid-1945. Japan had no military remaining and was two weeks away from starvation. A month-long blockade would have finished it.

So what?? The argument of weapons of mass destuction is moot. Instaling democracy is a non issue (America threatened the Turkish government with a repeat of the American led military coup if the democraticaly elected government did not allow the U.S army to use it's country as a base for attack). So what seems to be America's attitude to alot of things. Hence the wonderful (and hoped repeated) events of september the fantastic 11th.
You really need to be deleted, good buddy.

A few million Japanese and American lives saved (net) that would have been lost in the invasion?
No. :roll:

Read up on events in Manchuria in mid-1945. Japan had no military remaining and was two weeks away from starvation. A month-long blockade would have finished it.

Ok, Russia invaded a weakly-defended part of the Japanese empire. A more proper comparison would be to Iwo Jima or Okinawa, when the Japanese fought nearly literally to the point of death.

On the subject of food, we neither had no way of telling how much they had left. Nor did we want to starve a million (and possibly more) Japanese to death. Its entirely likely that the government would have done what North Korea is doing today, which is take the islands' meagre agricultural products and distribute it to the army and government.

Hopefully repeated as the first attack woke America up. But it is still groggy. A few more and maybe it will wake up to itself and realise it is not under some bullet proof dome and that it is part of the global community and will be punished by the masses if it errs

The fact that Manchuria was weakly defended was not the point. They lost the last remaining elements of their organised armed forces there, 1.5m men. Soldiers unavailable for a defence of the mainland, which after the losses in the Pacific, had been bled dry of manpower. In addition to the notable absence of an army, they also had no functioning navy or air force, and their industrial capacity was a joke, not least because Japan had virtually no indiginous energy and raw materials (which is what prompted the expansionism in the first place). An invasion of the mainland would have been opposed by civil defence battalions of old men and boys, many armed with bamboo canes because of shortages of rifles and ammunition. Use of artillery was of course out of the question - they had hardly any, and few people were left with the necessary training that had made the Japanese so proficient with it.

As I see it, the use of nukes was more to do with giving the USSR pause for thought in the Far East. Having the Red Army take out a Japanese army 1.5m men strong in two weeks and not passing comment on it would have been considered too dangerous. Hence they demonstrated their deterrent as the bulldozing began. It's a shame that this cold war myth remains unchallenged.