NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do the US and UK only vote for Authoritarian Right Partys/Leaders?

do you know why?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright

according to this (and my own knowledge of parties policies) neither the UK or US has a party that can be elected that will be Libertarian Left (same site says is my position)

So My Question is why?

Because Libertarianism sucks??



Both countries have a left (well US has a left of center) party. One can be a leftist without being a libertarian.

Why do the US and UK only vote for Authoritarian Right Partys/Leaders?

do you know why?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright

according to this (and my own knowledge of parties policies) neither the UK or US has a party that can be elected that will be Libertarian Left (same site says is my position)

So My Question is why?

Because they have cake. *nod*

Because their ideas don't really work that well? No government in Europe falls to that side of the spectrum, and its for a good reason; it's impossible to have reasonable personal freedom without reasonable economic freedom, resulting in a poor combination of ideas that ultimately ends up crimping both of them. Considering that the remnants of the former SED apparently falls on that side of the spectrum, I'm sort of leery about their ideas from the onset. The overall situation just doesn't produce the kind of successful mesh of the libertarian right.

From a US vantage, Dennis Kucinich is one of the worst mayors in American history flat out and an incompetent career politician that has brought nothing good to the Cleveland area. If that's the face of the libertarian left, that says enough for me.

so you are wondering why a country of over 300 million people doesnt elect a government that does pretty much nothing?

So My Question is why?because in the US, there can be only TWO parties. Democrat and Republican. anything else is "throwing your vote away" according to others.

because in the US, there can be only TWO parties. Democrat and Republican. anything else is "throwing your vote away" according to others.

both thoose parties are on the authoritarian right part of the compass, the only difference is that the democrats are less authoritarian right than the republicans

both thoose parties are on the authoritarian right part of the compass, the only difference is that the democrats are less authoritarian right than the republicans

It doesn't matter. As long as each party manages to describe themselves as 'We're not like them!" hard enough, they'll always share power.

So My Question is why?
A number of reasons.

The left, as a whole, is still tainted in many voters' minds by the authoritarian-left USSR, China et al; many European and US lib-left parties have only been incepted relatively recently. Beyond that, a large amount of the libertarian-left don't agree that they should get involved in party politics in the first place. A significant proportion directly reject representative 'democracy' as a viable means of achieving their aims.

Perhaps more importantly, in both the US and the UK, an important part of getting elected is being able to court business leaders, media-owners and other such influential people, not mentioning being seen as 'viable' in the eyes of institutions such as international banks, the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and member-state administrations of the G8, etc (for example, even though both Obama and McCain will pay lip-service to standing up against 'Big Oil' and 'Big Business', both are committed state capitalists, fully in favour of protectionist free marketerism).

Libertarian-left politics simply doesn't gel with those sorts of people.

Why do the US and UK only vote for Authoritarian Right Partys/Leaders?

do you know why?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright

according to this (and my own knowledge of parties policies) neither the UK or US has a party that can be elected that will be Libertarian Left (same site says is my position)

So My Question is why?
Because you touch yourself at night

Because you touch yourself at night

You liked that surveillance film? I have more. I can show you Conservative Morailty touching himself if the price is right.

Because you touch yourself at night
That too.

Why do the US and UK only vote for Authoritarian Right Partys/Leaders?
So My Question is why?

Because there's no other choice. The selection always is between two authoritarians.

Because there's no other choice. The selection always is between two authoritarians.

You all keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

both thoose parties are on the authoritarian right part of the compass, the only difference is that the democrats are less authoritarian right than the republicans

So you know why then... :p

You all keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
pssst... he's not the only one using that word...
\/
both thoose parties are on the authoritarian right part of the compass, the only difference is that the democrats are less authoritarian right than the republicans

pssst... he's not the only one using that word...
\/

Except he says the word authoritarian twice.


So, again, they keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

You all keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
How so?

The two main parties of both the UK and the US are in favour of using authoritarian measures within their respective countries to 'combat' terrorism, while championing authoritarian approaches to drug control, criminal prosecution and enforcement, etc.

They can be accurately described as 'authoritarian'. Perhaps not fascist nutjobs, but authoritarian all the same.

Perhaps you could show why you don't think the US Republican and Democrat, or the UK Labour and Conservative parties are authoritarian?

How so?

The two main parties of both the UK and the US are in favour of using authoritarian measures within their respective countries to 'combat' terrorism, while championing authoritarian approaches to drug control, criminal prosecution and enforcement, etc.

They can be accurately described as 'authoritarian'. Perhaps not fascist nutjobs, but authoritarian all the same.

Perhaps you could show why you don't think the US Republican and Democrat, or the UK Labour and Conservative parties are authoritarian?

I dont know anything about Labour or Conservative, but the only way in which the Democrats are authoritarian is they favor economic restrictions rather then free and unwatched capitalism. I think its safe to say that isnt authoritarian. Dems tend to be the party that favours the most social freedom and not policing people's lives.

I dont know anything about Labour or Conservative, but the only way in which the Democrats are authoritarian is they favor economic restrictions rather then free and unwatched capitalism. I think its safe to say that isnt authoritarian.
It isn't, because the term 'authoritarian' does not indicate any particular economic stance; it discusses whether someone, or some party, is libertarian or authoritarian on social issues. One can quite easily be authoritarian and in favour of economic restrictions. We generally call this the authoritarian-left.

Perhaps it is yourself who needs to brush up on political terminology, not Vault 10.

Dems tend to be the party that favours the most social freedom and not policing people's lives.
Only to a degree.

They're fairly un-libertarian on many social issues. They certainly don't support libertarian approaches to drugs, guns, education, taxes, etc.

How so?

The two main parties of both the UK and the US are in favour of using authoritarian measures within their respective countries to 'combat' terrorism, while championing authoritarian approaches to drug control, criminal prosecution and enforcement, etc.

They can be accurately described as 'authoritarian'. Perhaps not fascist nutjobs, but authoritarian all the same.

Perhaps you could show why you don't think the US Republican and Democrat, or the UK Labour and Conservative parties are authoritarian?
im trying to think of what party ISNT authoritarian.

im trying to think of what party ISNT authoritarian.

Green Party?

I dont know anything about Labour or Conservative, but the only way in which the Democrats are authoritarian is they favor economic restrictions rather then free and unwatched capitalism. I think its safe to say that isnt authoritarian. Dems tend to be the party that favours the most social freedom and not policing people's lives.
And they support gun bans.
And they are trying to solve inequality with quotas and "affirmative action".
And they're the ones in favor of prosecution of insufficiently PC speech.

So, basically, they are authoritarian both economically, politically, and socially.
Note we're not calling them "totalitarian", that would be the extreme edge.

im trying to think of what party ISNT authoritarian.

In America, I'm not sure. Some countries seem to have/used to have actual Anarchist Parties. I'm pretty sure they weren't authoritarian.

im trying to think of what party ISNT authoritarian.

This one? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=563182&highlight=party)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png

There we go, this image gives you an idea of the situation in the US

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enPartiesTime.gif

and in the UK

I wonder who is in the exact center and therefore the baseline for the rest of the chart. I suspect it's The Fonz. *nod*

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png

There we go, this image gives you an idea of the situation in the US
well then id have to say that the answer to your question is

"because we like it that way"

In America, I'm not sure. Some countries seem to have/used to have actual Anarchist Parties. I'm pretty sure they weren't authoritarian.
are there countries where anarchist parties are very popular?

So My Question is why?

because really your just pissy that your radical ideas (well irl) are not shared with mainstream society

They can be accurately described as 'authoritarian'. Perhaps not fascist nutjobs, but authoritarian all the same.
so anything that isn't extreme libertarian is actually authoritarian?

Perhaps you could show why you don't think the US Republican and Democrat, or the UK Labour and Conservative parties are authoritarian?

they have progressed many freedoms in their respective terms regardless of how they have adapted to 21st century problems (crushing the tyranny of Humphrey etc)

im trying to think of what party ISNT authoritarian.
In the UK, the Green Party of England and Wales, the Green Party in Northern Ireland and the Scottish Green Party are the major lib-left parties in the UK. The only one of the three with any political representation IIRC is the Scottish Greens, with eight councillors (one of whom I helped get elected in Glasgow) and two MSPs.

There are a variety of Communist parties in the UK, and though some of them aren't too libertarian, most of them tend to be Trotskyist in nature; supportive of a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat.

There are a few other wee parties up and down the country.

so anything that isn't extreme libertarian is actually authoritarian?

Apparently. Truth is, when I and most other people think of anarchy, we see Somalia and Liberia, the devastation, starvation, and poverty, the brutal warlords running rampant and unchecked by nothing other than their rivals.

I don't know about you, but I'll take my comfortable and safe life in the "authoritarian" United States where freedoms are guaranteed by laws and the judicial system rather than the "freedom" of anarchy where the only things that protect you are force and the ability to bully others in to line. I like knowing my food and water are inspected and produced according to real, enforceable laws and that the natural environment is protected by regulations. Truth is, I see a lot more social, economic, and political change and development here than has ever been realized in the stateless regions of the world. I feel libertarianism is economic, political and personal freedom in a nation of laws ruled by an elected government, not the lack of those.

Nobody's ever explained to me why "authoritarian" is always bad and "libertarian" always good. I like knowing there are people looking out for me, and the vast majority of others on Earth feel the same way.

so anything that isn't extreme libertarian is actually authoritarian?
Nope; anything that is authoritarian is authoritarian.

If folks are getting confused, 'authoritarian' doesn't necessarily mean totalitarian states. It simply means a support for state intervention into people's social lives.

Quite clearly, the two main parties of both the UK and the US are in strong favour of state intervention on a whole range of issues; from drug and gun control to educational and criminal policy.

they have progressed many freedoms in their respective terms regardless of how they have adapted to 21st century problems (crushing the tyranny of Humphrey etc)
Replacing the power of civil servants with spin doctors doesn't make one libertarian.

In the UK, the Green Party of England and Wales, the Green Party in Northern Ireland and the Scottish Green Party are the major lib-left parties in the UK. The only one of the three with any political representation IIRC is the Scottish Greens, with eight councillors (one of whom I helped get elected in Glasgow) and two MSPs.

There are a variety of Communist parties in the UK, and though some of them aren't too libertarian, most of them tend to be Trotskyist in nature; supportive of a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat.

There are a few other wee parties up and down the country.
arent most communist parties authoritarian?

i dont know anything about the greens. how are they NOT authoritarian?

I feel libertarianism is economic, political and personal freedom in a nation of laws ruled by an elected government, not the lack of those.

however when has radical change ever been good?

If folks are getting confused, 'authoritarian' doesn't necessarily mean totalitarian states. It simply means a support for state intervention into people's social lives.

only if you forget things like centrism

arent most communist parties authoritarian?
Some are, some aren't.

i dont know anything about the greens. how are they NOT authoritarian?
Because on the whole they don't advocate government intervention into people's lives. As far as I am aware, the Green parties in the UK aren't in favour of enforcing environmental policies on citizens through government restrictions on their lives, but by economic policy (hence the libertarian-left), incentives, local action and raising public awareness.

It's important to note, however, that the Green parties are just one part of the lager Green movement in the UK, much of which is opposed to involvement with parliamentary politics.



however when has radical change ever been good?
Many, many times.

From radical social change, such as the successes of the Civil Rights and Feminist movements, to radical technological change, such as the rise of the net.

only if you forget things like centrism
How so?

A centrist who is support for state intervention in a few things, and state non-intervention in others, can still be described as authoritarian on some issues and libertarian on others. Once again, describing someone as 'authoritarian' isn't necessarily equating them with Hitler.

however when has radical change ever been good?

Maybe the American Revolution, at least for those of us here in the US.

Otherwise, it seems most radical changes do nothing but prompt a reactionary backlash that might end up reversing all of the previous gains, such as what happened in the Soviet Union or Germany. Generally, I feel that the public has a certain acceptable rate of change that if exceeded usually ends up doing more harm than good, and this applies to all aspects of the political process and social change.

They're fairly un-libertarian on many social issues. They certainly don't support libertarian approaches to drugs, guns, education, taxes, etc.

Drugs are not open for debate currently in the public sphere. I dont know who or what they would support, but one cannot say what the Dems stance would be because its not currently be debating. We can speculate, but it would only be just that, speculation.

Guns I will give you.

Education? How so? You have the freedom to go to a public school or to a private school. The government runs some, and the private ones can be started up by a private citizen. I call that freedom.

Taxes? I wouldnt consider taxes a social issue. But every party taxes. Even a liberatrian party would. Theyd say otherwise, until they realized they couldnt do any of their goals because they are dirt poor.


So, Dems support gun control. I wouldnt say that makes them an authoritarian party.

EDIT: From reading up on Labor, Conservative, and the Liberal Party, Id say that Liberal is not authoritarian, Labor has its tendencies, and Conservative is rather authoritarian.

So, the UK has two "authoritarian" parties (one I wouldnt even call authoritarian) and one that isnt. The US has one and then one that supports gun control, and if that alone makes them authoritarian, then sure.

the Green parties in the UK aren't in favour of enforcing environmental policies on citizens through government restrictions on their lives, but by economic policy (hence the libertarian-left), incentives, local action and raising public awareness.

animal rights (well some people..yeah)

but putting the green party forward is surely silly because they are not a serious political party much like how labour would appear an amazing rainbow land if it was always a small opposition party

In the UK, the Green Party of England and Wales, the Green Party in Northern Ireland and the Scottish Green Party are the major lib-left parties in the UK. The only one of the three with any political representation IIRC is the Scottish Greens, with eight councillors (one of whom I helped get elected in Glasgow) and two MSPs.

ok i read the other post....

is that city councillors? what kind of policies do they promote that you support? are they better at the local level than the national level?

whats an MSP?

Maybe the American Revolution, at least for those of us here in the US.

ah yes Americans killing Americans followed by economic woes and debt

that sounds perfect its a good thing the price of tea went down...

Otherwise, it seems most radical changes do nothing but prompt a reactionary backlash that might end up reversing all of the previous gains, such as what happened in the Soviet Union or Germany. Generally, I feel that the public has a certain acceptable rate of change that if exceeded usually ends up doing more harm than good, and this applies to all aspects of the political process and social change.

er...exactly however its not just reactionaries but also the economy, infrastructure, budget etc

ah yes Americans killing Americans followed by economic woes and debt

that sounds perfect its a good thing the price of tea went down...

One might appreciate the irony that Americans emerged from the Revolution a predominantly coffee-drinking nation.

er...exactly however its not just reactionaries but also the economy, infrastructure, budget etc

True, but those limits tend to be hit later than the limits for public political tolerance.

You liked that surveillance film? I have more. I can show you Conservative Morailty touching himself if the price is right.

I thought I destroyed that tape!

Whoops! Erm... Uh... *Flees*

Drugs are not open for debate currently in the public sphere. I dont know who or what they would support, but one cannot say what the Dems stance would be because its not currently be debating. We can speculate, but it would only be just that, speculation.
I think it's safe to say the Democrats, as a party, are not in favour of legalising recreational drugs. Although Obama seems to (http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/barack-obama/11/medical-marijuana-and-drug-policy/1/) support (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGzHgcrK75c) a relaxation on the criminalisation of cannabis and recreational cannabis users, he's not about to come out with an incredibly libertarian approach to drug policy.

Once again, I'm not saying he, or the Democrats in general, are Nazis because of this, just pointing out the plain fact that don't support a libertarian attitude to drugs.

Education? How so? You have the freedom to go to a public school or to a private school.
I believe school attendance is compulsory in the US ( it is in the UK) and that this compulsion is supported by both the Dems and the Reps. Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it isn't a libertarian attitude.

Taxes? I wouldnt consider taxes a social issue.
Mandatory payment of taxes to a national government is very much state-intervention into people's lives.

So, Dems support gun control. I wouldnt say that makes them an authoritarian party.
It makes them very much authoritarian on this issue; and it's clear they take an authoritarian position on other issues besides. Moreover, they're supportive of centralised government, a consolidation of power with a small minority of citizens, and ultimately, focus heavily on the authority of the state over the individual.

I'm making little judgement on the above, just pointing out that these are authoritarian measures.



animal rights (well some people..yeah)
Sorry, what are you saying here?

but putting the green party forward is surely silly because...
I'm not 'putting them forward', I'm simply answering Ashmoria's question of what political party isn't authoritarian. Comparatively, the UK Green parties (and I imagine the US Green Party) are far more libertarian than most other parties; though I would agree that any political party that advocates centralised power or government intervention (which, to be fair, the Greens are generally wary of) is in some way authoritarian.



is that city councillors?
In this case, yes, in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Though the system of local government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_Scotland) in Scotland does not simply cover cities.

what kind of policies do they promote that you support? are they better at the local level than the national level?
Things that attracted my vote are: they're in favour of decentralised, local government, moving away from centralised bureaucracies, while staying far away from isolationism; far more libertarian attitudes towards a number of social issues, including drug policy; sustainable and green energy policies; and a real effort to tackle poverty and homelessness in Scotland.

They tend to do better at the local, council level, than on a parliamentary stage. However, they've done a lot better in recent years, and with Scotlands far more representative method of electing politicians, they've become more powerful. They basically allowed the current Scottish administration, the Scottish National Party, to hold power in Holyrood (the Scottish parliament), as the Nats only have a two-seat majority.

whats an MSP?
'Member of the Scottish Parliament', sitting at Holyrood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament), as opposed to a Member of Parliament (or MP) sitting at Westminster.

From radical social change, such as the successes of the Civil Rights and Feminist movements, to radical technological change, such as the rise of the net.

all slow processes especially in the example of feminism

A centrist who is support for state intervention in a few things, and state non-intervention in others, can still be described as authoritarian on some issues and libertarian on others. Once again, describing someone as 'authoritarian' isn't necessarily equating them with Hitler.

no that cannot, centrism is not a person who evens out as equal it is only the middle ground

One might appreciate the irony that Americans emerged from the Revolution a predominantly coffee-drinking nation.

the biggest crime of the conflict :tongue:

True, but those limits tend to be hit later than the limits for public political tolerance.

however if change is taken steadily and in advance it works out rather well not that I would want to live in a state that doesn't go against public opinion

Because Libertarianism sucks??



Both countries have a left (well US has a left of center) party. One can be a leftist without being a libertarian.

bull the states has right and further right and nothing else

all slow processes especially in the example of feminism
I'd disagree.

Although certain facets of the Civil Rights and Feminist movements took a long time to have any effect, change for the US Civil Rights movement during the 1960s, and for the Feminist movement during the early parts of the twentieth century, could be accurately described as 'radical'.

Moreover, technological change and its effect on society, especially with the advent of the internet and mobile phones, has quite obviously been radical. I'm not saying 'overnight', but it's clear that society has drastically changed since these two technologies (in particular) exploded onto the scene.

centrism is not a person who evens out as equal it is only the middle ground
Your point being?

Someone who doesn't support major state-intervention, nor major non-intervention can't be describes as 'authoritarian' or 'libertarian'. Is this not also your position?

What's your argument here?

bull the states has right and further right and nothing else

The Dems are centrist, maybe slightly left of center. If you want to explain how they are right, Id be happy to listen, but considering youre canadian, Ill take your explaination on my country's political parties and system with a grain of salt.

Because on the whole they don't advocate government intervention into people's lives. As far as I am aware, the Green parties in the UK aren't in favour of enforcing environmental policies on citizens through government restrictions on their lives, but by economic policy (hence the libertarian-left), incentives, local action and raising public awareness.

Economic policy does impact people in through restrictions of their lives thought.

The Dems are centrist, maybe slightly left of center. If you want to explain how they are right, Id be happy to listen, but considering youre canadian, Ill take your explaination on my country's political parties and system with a grain of salt.

On the political compass graph in the OP the dems are on the political right.

On the political compass graph in the OP the dems are on the political right.

Then I, as well as many many others both in the US and without, disagree with the graph in OP.

If the only thing that makes them right is they are not libertarians, well thats a really stupid criteria. Im a leftist, everyone would say I am, but I am by no means a libertarian because I dont worship the market as a god like entity.

Economic policy does impact people in through restrictions of their lives thought.
Certainly, but that's not what 'authoritarian' (when used in a political context) generally describes.

I wouldn't claim that the UK Green Parties are the most libertarian folks ever, but they're a hell of a lot more libertarian than New Labour or the Tories.



If the only thing that makes them right is they are not libertarians, well thats a really stupid criteria.
That's not what the graph is saying at all.

Im a leftist, everyone would say I am, but I am by no means a libertarian because I dont worship the market as a god like entity.
You're confusing big-L Libertarians (who would, generally, be described as right-libertarians, as they oppose state intervention in both economic an social aspects of individual's lives) with small-l libertarians (who oppose government intervention in social aspects of individual's lives, yet can be to the economic right or economic left).

The Dems are centrist, maybe slightly left of center. If you want to explain how they are right, Id be happy to listen, but consideringYou'reCanadian, Ill take your explanation on my country's political parties and system with a grain of salt.
“We are citizens of the world. The tragedy of our times is that we do not know this.”

Woodrow T. Wilson



lack of free health care, Poor education system for those not particularly well off, the right to bear arms, abortion and religious issues (such as the religious becoming more of a political force in the states.). This despite many democrat governments (and even some recent ones). Or for another example, if the democrats were to suggest say, an overhaul of the health care or social support systems that would cause a mild increase in taxes, the American public would dessert them in droves. Or if the democrats were to suggest that maybe the military should have a little less funding or even that the war in Iraq was , in fact, grounds for impeachment of George Dubya, the same thing would happen. An active Left-wing party would probably be on board with most of these ideals. Even the liberals in canada (a centrist party btw.) would support most of these. Hell most conservatives probably would too.

Then I, as well as many many others both in the US and without, disagree with the graph in OP.

If the only thing that makes them right is they are not libertarians, well thats a really stupid criteria. Im a leftist, everyone would say I am, but I am by no means a libertarian because I dont worship the market as a god like entity.

oh bullshit knights if your a leftist I'm a commie.

Certainly, but that's not what 'authoritarian' (when used in a political context) generally describes.

I wouldn't claim that the UK Green Parties are the most libertarian folks ever, but they're a hell of a lot more libertarian than New Labour or the Tories.

You defined authoritarianism is defined as state invervention. The greens state a large number of interventions. To properly see how its authoritarianism compares to Labour or Tories one will have to look at all the interventions they would advocate.

oh bullshit knights if your a leftist I'm a commie.
Does this mean I should put you on "The list"?:p

lack of free health care,

Which dems push for

Poor education system for those not particularly well off,

Dems push for improvement (and our education system is not poor as a whole, its very area dependent)

the right to bear arms,

Dems push for lessening this.

abortion

Dems are pro-choice

and religious issues (such as the religious becoming more of a political force in the states.).

Dems attempt to minimize this.

NONE of your accusations hold any water. The dems by your criteria are not a right wing party. It appears that my judgement about poor knowledge of US politics due to being Canadian wasnt that far off.

This despite many democrat governments (and even some recent ones). Or for another example, if the democrats were to suggest say, an overhaul of the health care or social support systems that would cause a mild increase in taxes, the American public would dessert them in droves. Or if the democrats were to suggest that maybe the military should have a little less funding or even that the war in Iraq was , in fact, grounds for impeachment of George Dubya, the same thing would happen. An active Left-wing party would probably be on board with most of these ideals. Even the liberals in canada (a centrist party btw.) would support most of these. Hell most conservatives probably would too.

This is a problem with the American public, not the democratic political party. All you have proven is that the majority of the American people are right of center, which anyone with two brain cells to rub together could have told you, myself included.


Try again.

oh bullshit knights if your a leftist I'm a commie.

Really, apperantly you know my politics better then I do. Tell me, in what way am I not a leftist?


This should be fun. Continue to demonstrate your ignorance please. Or you just ready to admit you are a commy?

lack of free health care

There is nowhere on Earth where healthcare is free. You're paying for it just as much as we are, just through different venues. Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not it's worth some people paying more to fund the obligations of others; I'd say to an extent it is, but if you go too far you stifle private competition and end up dragging down the overall quality of healthcare. The Laffer curve is a pretty good model for most government programs...if only we knew where we were on the curve to begin with.

Does this mean I should put you on "The list"?:p

lol I . . .don't . . .think so. . . .I' don't really agree with anything they say (they being Stalin, Lennon or Mao. .. i'm not to sure how else to define "modern" communism)

“We are citizens of the world. The tragedy of our times is that we do not know this.”

Or for another example, if the democrats were to suggest say, an overhaul of the health care or social support systems that would cause a mild increase in taxes, the American public would dessert them in droves.
Or if the democrats were to suggest that maybe the military should have a little less funding or even that the war in Iraq was , in fact, grounds for impeachment of George Dubya, the same thing would happen.
You're indeed a citizen of the world, certainly not US...

lol I . . .don't . . .think so. . . .I' don't really agree with anything they say (they being Stalin, Lennon or Mao. .. i'm not to sure how else to define "modern" communism)

Im still waiting.


EDIT: Im wasting my time, I dont think your going to defend any of your wild claims, especially about my allegid right wing politics.

You defined authoritarianism is defined as state invervention.
Broadly, yes, though I'd caveat that with a number of other features, including centralisation of power.

The greens state a large number of interventions.
Some, yes.

As I say, they're not the most libertarian folks ever.

To properly see how its authoritarianism compares to Labour or Tories one will have to look at all the interventions they would advocate.
Scottish Labour (http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/home)
Scottish Conservatives (http://www.scottishconservatives.com/)
Scottish Greens (http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/)

Which dems push for



Dems push for improvement (and our education system is not poor as a whole, its very area dependent)



Dems push for lessening this.



Dems are pro-choice



Dems attempt to minimize this.

NONE of your accusations hold any water. The dems by your criteria are not a right wing party. It appears that my judgement about poor knowledge of US politics due to being Canadian wasnt that far off.



This is a problem with the American public, not the democratic political party. All you have proven is that the majority of the American people are right of center, which anyone with two brain cells to rub together could have told you, myself included.


Try again.

alright back off the ad hominem arguments would you. It just makes you look desperate KoL. Second . . .spell check please, It's kinda hard to read your stuff.
to the first, my point was no matter what the "dems" might say they haven't implemented any of those changes in America. By the way, I do realize no health care is free but I am all for government (tax) funded health care. Second, the democrats are supported by about half of who? The American populace thus as you said, "the majority of the American people are right of center" and the democrats have recently been in power and have had over fifty % of the popular vote thus the democrats must be right of center. Maybe its your judgment that's off due to being an American and trying to analyze your own political parties from your point of view, Rather than the worlds'.

read this http://www.ontheissues.org/Dem_Platform_2004.htm
then try reading that of the Canadian liberal party. (i'm using this as a bench mark but you could use pretty much any "more leftist" countries centrist party.)

Maybe its your judgment that's off due to being an American and trying to analyze your own political parties from your point of view, Rather than the worlds'.

Who is the world? Western Europe and Canada? So you're judging 4.4% of the world's population based on the politics of another 5% or so?

The majority of world governments are to one extent or another right-wing populist or free-market conservative, especially in Asia and Eastern Europe. Another big chunk have some kind of autocracy in power, which to one extent or another is conservative and populist. Compared to the world, we're still pretty liberal and it's neither fair nor accurate to paint the US as some kind of anomaly. For many of that remaining 5.87 billion people out there, their political world is far different and far more conservative than ours.

alright back off the ad hominem arguments would you. It just makes you look desperate KoL.

Then dont make BS undefendable clams.

Second . . .spell check please, It's kinda hard to read your stuff.

Sod off. Oh, and the first word in a sentence is capitalized.

to the first, my point was no matter what the "dems" might say they haven't implemented any of those changes in America. By the way, I do realize no health care is free but I am all for government (tax) funded health care.

Because its not so easy to bring about sweeping change, especilly when half the country is opposed to it.

Second, the democrats are supported by about half of who? The American populace thus as you said, "the majority of the American people are right of center" and the democrats have recently been in power and have had over fifty % of the popular vote thus the democrats must be right of center.

Piss poor logic. The republicans have won sweeping victories until recently, and that was only the dems winning the disgruntled vote rather then winning on issues.

Maybe its your judgment that's off due to being an American and trying to analyze your own political parties from your point of view, Rather than the worlds'.

See, you are the only person Ive ever heard say the dems are a right wing party. Most would consider them left of center. Im sorry, I dont take the opinions on what my political parties stand for, as well as the political climate of my country, very seriously when its coming from a forgiener.

Well, I maybe consider your opinions, but I wont put much stock in em.


read this http://www.ontheissues.org/Dem_Platform_2004.htm
then try reading that of the Canadian liberal party. (i'm using this as a bench mark but you could use pretty much any "more leftist" countries centrist party.)[/QUOTE]

lol I . . .don't . . .think so. . . .I' don't really agree with anything they say (they being Stalin, Lennon or Mao. .. i'm not to sure how else to define "modern" communism)

'Lennon'?

'Lennon'?

Don't you recall his 1980 assassination by Fanya Kaplan?

Im still waiting.


EDIT: Im wasting my time, I dont think your going to defend any of your wild claims, especially about my allegid right wing politics.

Relax. Believe me, I'll respond KoL. I'm just going through your posts trying to pick out some sort of belief system . .. I'm having trouble. so can you answer some questions for me? What is your position on health care? what do you believe about social reforms? what is your stance on the war in Iraq? How do you feel about government control over an individual's well being either financial or otherwise?

"Typical Obama supporter elitism! Im voting for McCain now! Just to spite you meany heads!" (sorry threw that in just for fun.)

'Lennon'?

lol I'm an idiot sorry Lenin . . .not Lennon . . .I spell checked and . .. ya

lol I'm an idiot sorry Lenin . . .not Lennon . . .I spell checked and . .. ya

Actually, I've had spell checkers inadvertently autocorrect it to Lennon if I misspell Lenin's name...

Broadly, yes, though I'd caveat that with a number of other features, including centralisation of power.

Actually I don't think centralization of power is authoritarian or libertarian. Many advocates I know wish to decentralize power in order to increase state interventions. Ron Paul want to give the US states the power to ban abortion, regulate their citizens and residents sex lives and do practically anything that's not given to the weak federal government in his version of the US Constitution. I'm guessing that the Greens also wish to set up a number state interventions in local government as well.


Some, yes.

Lets see the Grenn Party of England and Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales#Policy) wants to ban live exports, genetic manipulation, patenting of animals, bloodsports, badger-baiting, circuses, zoos, fur products, and the advertising or sponsorship by alcohol and tobacco firms( along with the newly legalised recreational drugs firms I assume). They support the subsidisation of organic farming in small free-range units and want to phase out[limit it and ban] all forms of intensive farming, including fish farms. They want to set up a Citizen's dividend, increase the tax rate in the top tax bracket, include more ecotaxes, setup a progressive corporation tax that favors small businesses, renationalize the railways and some other utilities, increase the ability of labour to organize and probably many many more things.

Then dont make BS undefendable clams.



Sod off. Oh, and the first word in a sentence is capitalized.



Because its not so easy to bring about sweeping change, especilly when half the country is opposed to it.



Piss poor logic. The republicans have won sweeping victories until recently, and that was only the dems winning the disgruntled vote rather then winning on issues.



See, you are the only person Ive ever heard say the dems are a right wing party. Most would consider them left of center. Im sorry, I dont take the opinions on what my political parties stand for, as well as the political climate of my country, very seriously when its coming from a forgiener.

Well, I maybe consider your opinions, but I wont put much stock in em.


read this http://www.ontheissues.org/Dem_Platform_2004.htm
then try reading that of the Canadian liberal party. (i'm using this as a bench mark but you could use pretty much any "more leftist" countries centrist party.)

1) or try to be civil while I try to defend my "BS undefendable (sic.) claims?"

2)thanks

3)no that's not true. If you have a majority you can do pretty much whatever you want and no-one else has any recourse short of impeachment (read Bush).

4)read up would you. http://en.wikipedia.org wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html

5)are you really? That's funny. . . though you'd say that regardless wouldn't you. But I'm glad to know you might actually be as closed minded as you seem.

Who is the world? Western Europe and Canada? So you're judging 4.4% of the world's population based on the politics of another 5% or so?

The majority of world governments are to one extent or another right-wing populist or free-market conservative, especially in Asia and Eastern Europe. Another big chunk have some kind of autocracy in power, which to one extent or another is conservative and populist. Compared to the world, we're still pretty liberal and it's neither fair nor accurate to paint the US as some kind of anomaly. For many of that remaining 5.87 billion people out there, their political world is far different and far more conservative than ours.

ah fair enough and good point . . .but I was more just pointing out that excluding anyone but america's oppinion of itself might be a bad idea.

You're indeed a citizen of the world, certainly not US...

lol aw thanks . . .such a nice compliment :D

Actually, I've had spell checkers inadvertently autocorrect it to Lennon if I misspell Lenin's name...

lol ya I did exactly that . . .sometimes I'm a genius *heavy sarcasm*

Actually I don't think centralization of power is authoritarian or libertarian.
No, not per se, but it's certainly a hallmark of authoritarian administrations.

Lets see the Grenn Party of England and Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales#Policy) wants to ban live exports, genetic manipulation, patenting of animals, bloodsports, badger-baiting, circuses, zoos, fur products, and the advertising or sponsorship by alcohol and tobacco firms( along with the newly legalised recreational drugs firms I assume). They support the subsidisation of organic farming in small free-range units and want to phase out[limit it and ban] all forms of intensive farming, including fish farms. They want to set up a Citizen's dividend, increase the tax rate in the top tax bracket, include more ecotaxes, setup a progressive corporation tax that favors small businesses, renationalize the railways and some other utilities, increase the ability of labour to organize and probably many many more things.
As I said, they aren't the most libertarian folks on the planet, no.

But their advocacy for state intervention on these issues pales in significance next to the amount of intervention proposed (or enacted) by the Tory and Labour parties. They advocate intervention on almost all of the above issues, as well a many, many other issues where the Green parties would want a limitation or end to state intervention.

http://paulitics.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/new-left-right-spectrum-canada-us-08.png
best I could do for now but just to prove I may not be the ONLY person calling the democrats right of center.

By looking at the political compass webiste I can say that it dosnt represent Australian politics at all for the 2008 election.

1 Labor is more of a centre left party and liberal centre right. This is not evident.
2 The greens are left winged but they are surpassed by the socialist party which dosnt appear but still alters the people going into power.
3 Family first is the religous party. There is none elected more god fearing then them. Why they are put between the two center parties (Liberal and Labor) that actually consider allowing abortion and gay marriage is beyond me
4 The closest party to family first is national. Well I would normally say that would be one nation or liberal.

If you as a foreign person are looking at that website to help you judge US politics I would be very carefull. I couldnt agree with my own country. Why should I agree with a foreign one that I know even less about?

Funny, i thought the Australian one was fairly accurate.

Because it's all entirely relative to the country, and what is right wing in one is called left in another, esp on the political compass, rather than being represented as an overall spectrum.

This one? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=563182&highlight=party)

Win!!
http://www.storiesofwisdom.com/images/winner-win.jpg

BAH! I say that we abolish all this left/right political party nonsense and go back to feudalism.

*Hires serfs to farm turnips on his land*

Because they have cake. *nod*

Yellow Cake.

Because you touch yourself at night
I'm sorry. I know it's wrong but it feels soooooo good.

I dont know anything about Labour or Conservative.
Labour has brought in or updated some pretty draconian laws that deal with the holding of prisoners. The police are now allowed to hold someone for 90 days before needing to formerly charge them of any crime, if they are suspected (note: suspected) of being party to terrorist activity. The Tories brought this law in and set it at 14 days without charge. Labour changed it to 90 days.
Add in the number of CCTV cameras in public areas, which are estimated at over 4 million, meaning 1 camera for every 14 citizens. There's ~1/2 a million CCTVs in London alone; compare that to NY which has less than 4,000. This system was set up by the Tories but has been expanded on a massive level by Labour.

There's plenty of other examples but these two alone show just how damn authoritarian the UK govts are.

Why do the US and UK only vote for Authoritarian Right Partys/Leaders?

do you know why?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright

according to this (and my own knowledge of parties policies) neither the UK or US has a party that can be elected that will be Libertarian Left (same site says is my position)

So My Question is why?

Because that is the current political climate, induced by exaggerated fears of terrorism and other crimes such as paedophilia. Increased awareness of green issues has also meant introduction of mandatory actions from people and business; whether you think this is a good thing or not, it is still authoritarian.

Also, I'd contend that many people have not voted for parties because of what they will restrict, but what they will free up. After the election, in which people have a limited choice, they have little control over the policies created. I'm sure no one voted in Labour hoping they'd increase the time of detention without charge and numerous other infringements of basic freedoms. These were a reaction by the party to events (i.e. 9/11, 7/7), not by the people themselves.

I disagree with PC's assessments in this case, I don't believe that Labour is that right wing. I generally define the centre as a state with a basic social security net, some major aspects of industry nationalised but the majority of industry private, business tax and reasonable business regulation, moderately high taxes.. etc... This is what labour has got, to the far left would be a system where almost all business is nationalised/collectivised, very high taxes/redistribution of wealth etc... And on the right (where PC has put Labour) would be minimal taxes, very little if at all social security, a private health care system, very little business regulation, a flat tax system etc... So with this, I would put Labour in the centre. Also, although Labour are a little authoritarian, I don't think they are that high up on the scale, if they are then I feel the BNP should be way higher.

Seeing as we already posted two politicalcompass images...
http://politicalcompass.org/images/eu2008.gif
If you compare them, you'll see that Obama's around the Belgium/Germany dot and Hillary is aropund the Lithuania dot. Meanwhile, McCain is around the Greece/UK area, and he's more liberal than msot republicans. So yes, politics in the US are a bit further to the right than europe in general, but if american politics are right vs further right, then most of europe is right vs further right.

Seeing as we already posted two politicalcompass images...
If you compare them, you'll see that Obama's around the Belgium/Germany dot and Hillary is aropund the Lithuania dot. Meanwhile, McCain is around the Greece/UK area, and he's more liberal than msot republicans. So yes, politics in the US are a bit further to the right than europe in general, but if american politics are right vs further right, then most of europe is right vs further right.

I don't think the graphs are designed to be overlaid. And the axes are region specific rather than world specific.

I wonder who is in the exact center and therefore the baseline for the rest of the chart. I suspect it's The Fonz. *nod*

I have a friend who scores almost exactly 0,0 on the test. It must be him.

I don't think the graphs are designed to be overlaid. And the axes are region specific rather than world specific.

I've always been under the impression that the political compass was designed to be a uniform measure for comparing several countries. If it wasn't, than the graphs of Europe (for example), would be weighted to put the center of the graph around Ireland, rather than slightly beyond Sweden.

What is your position on health care?


I support its socialization


what do you believe about social reforms?

Social Reform as in? I am a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage secularist.

what is your stance on the war in Iraq?

Against it from the begining.

How do you feel about government control over an individual's well being either financial or otherwise?

Government out of personal lives, but I support Government intervention in the corperate arena.

"Typical Obama supporter elitism! Im voting for McCain now! Just to spite you meany heads!" (sorry threw that in just for fun.)

;)

Because Libertarianism sucks??



Both countries have a left (well US has a left of center) party. One can be a leftist without being a libertarian.

You call the Democrats left of centre?

Also, that site isn't that great with its cross thing, because different see things differently, for example, the Lib Dems would be pretty far left in America, but over here most people see them as centre left.

I've always been under the impression that the political compass was designed to be a uniform measure for comparing several countries. If it wasn't, than the graphs of Europe (for example), would be weighted to put the center of the graph around Ireland, rather than slightly beyond Sweden.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008


When examining the chart it's important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe.

That last sentance in articular seems to suggest it isn't. That and if you compare the UK Parties 2008 graph with the EU governments one, the Labour party's dot is in a different place to the UK gov's dot, despite since they've been in power for 10 years one would imagine they'd line up.

Why do the US and UK only vote for Authoritarian Right Partys/Leaders?
They don't.

In the UK's case, we have the Lib Dems, and although I'm not actually sure of any of their policies on anything any more because they've been mired in a leadership struggle which exposed the entire front bench as polygamists, gays, child abusers, alcoholics etc. etc., they are a very wooly, feel-good party who are on the centre-left.

Labour are also not all that right-wing, or they would have shut down the NHS by now and given us all a tax break for once. The Tories are the only real right-wing party in the UK, and even then their current policies are more centre-right than hard right. Obviously, with the Thatcherite old guard still going strong in the HoC at the very least, as soon as they're voted in we're in trouble.

Authoritarianism is also generally up after the September 11th attacks, and not just in the UK and US.
according to this (and my own knowledge of parties policies) neither the UK or US has a party that can be elected that will be Libertarian Left (same site says is my position)

So My Question is why?
In the UK's case, it's because 'proper' British communists mostly start voting Conservative when they finish their BA and realise that taxes are actually a ballache, not to mention their legendary capacity for forming splinter-groups because they like to be in charge.

In the US' case, there is no real precedent of a truly successful socialist party.

Democracy has become a circus. Presidents are elected under the same principles than prom queens. Elections are popularity contests. Thus you need big money and big media support to have a chance. Then, anyone who truly opposes big business will have no chance of truly winning an election.

Anyone who doesn't see that both parties are virtually the same thing needs a reality check... Supporters may be purists, but their politicians sure as hell aren't.

I personally think this compass is a little inaccurate... I'd put Ron Paul closer to Libertarian than they did. I might have a bias though because I'm Libertarian and I like Ron Paul way more than I like Mike Gravel.

Democracy has become a circus.
It always has been.
Presidents are elected under the same principles than prom queens. Elections are popularity contests. Thus you need big money and big media support to have a chance. Then, anyone who truly opposes big business will have no chance of truly winning an election.
Yes, no shit.
I personally think this compass is a little inaccurate... I'd put Ron Paul closer to Libertarian than they did. I might have a bias though because I'm Libertarian and I like Ron Paul way more than I like Mike Gravel.
Eugh Ron Paul. EUGH.

Apparently. Truth is, when I and most other people think of anarchy, we see Somalia and Liberia, the devastation, starvation, and poverty, the brutal warlords running rampant and unchecked by nothing other than their rivals.So then what you're saying is that most people need to revise their definitions of anarchy?

The Dems are centrist, maybe slightly left of center. If you want to explain how they are right, Id be happy to listen,PATRIOT Act? Granting immunity to telecoms? Immigration restrictions?

See, you are the only person Ive ever heard say the dems are a right wing party. Most would consider them left of center.They're definitely not left of center. Some individual democrats might be, but the party as a whole is not, as it contains many right of center individuals as well.

They don't.

In the UK's case, we have the Lib Dems, and although I'm not actually sure of any of their policies on anything any more because they've been mired in a leadership struggle which exposed the entire front bench as polygamists, gays, child abusers, alcoholics etc. etc., they are a very wooly, feel-good party who are on the centre-left..

On the upside, makes conference a right laugh.

Because they have cake. *nod*

The cake is a lie!
The cake is a lie!
The cake is a lie!
The cake is a lie!

Well, we have two parties because the media only reports on two parties. The major media report on only those two parties because they're the only ones the majority of their audience knows about. The majority of the people only know about two parties because they're the only ones the media talks about. The major media report on only those two parties because they're the only ones the majority of their audience knows about. The majority of the people only know about two parties because they're the only ones the media talks about. The major media report on only those two parties because they're the only ones the majority of their audience knows about. The majority of the people only know about two parties because they're the only ones the media talks about.......

a letter sent to me by a friend.

We, in Ireland, can't figure out why you people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States.

On one side, you had a pants wearing female lawyer, married to another lawyer who can't seem to keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer, who goes to the wrong church, who is married to yet another lawyer, who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run!

Now...On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate 'Mc' terminology, married to a good looking! younger woman who owns a beer distributorship !!

What in God's name are ya lads thinkin over in the colonies!

:D

So then what you're saying is that most people need to revise their definitions of anarchy?

PATRIOT Act? Granting immunity to telecoms? Immigration restrictions?

They're definitely not left of center. Some individual democrats might be, but the party as a whole is not, as it contains many right of center individuals as well.

Don't forget their cowardice to actually step up and support full gay rights. Ditto with their pretty inept attempts at revamping the healthcare system in the US. Or that many got swept up with the whole Iraq War bit too...and of course, they still need to do pandering to the evangelicals and religious to prove they're not godless commie bastards.