Why do Americans think the Democrats are left wing?

[HamburgerBoy]

Right...

Where I live it's the same as the bastardized "definition" of the US. I'm mentioning the objective, unbiased definition. The definition you're asking for already exists, and in most specific sense Liberalism is the belief in liberty and equal rights. The US Democratic Party already misses the mark in both in some issues.

Defining things relative to the country you're in is extremely moronic and only leads to confusion and inaccuracies.

I intentionally avoided using the word 'liberal' to describe American politics knowing that you'd throw a fit, and being that it doesn't have exactly the same history as 'left-wing'. If you wish to use them interchangeably, that is fine. Now, in what way does the Democratic Party miss the mark significantly more than, say, the United Kingdom? They obviously spend more on social programs which could push them closer to your liberal ideal, but at the same time they have considerably more restrictions in terms of free speech ("anti-social behaviour", lol), gun rights, and privacy. I'm sure that there are a decent number of Western European countries significantly further left than the United States, but going by the argument of relativity made by the op I doubt that the United States is even right-of-center, by your definition of the term.

And I said that I didn't try to define it. I was waiting for one of you guys to.

 

[monovillage]

You'd have to tell us what the true, actual, legitimate left wingers believe in for us to make an accurate assessment. Tell us what you support and what you believe in as a Canadian left winger.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I intentionally avoided using the word 'liberal' to describe American politics knowing that you'd throw a fit, and being that it doesn't have exactly the same history as 'left-wing'. If you wish to use them interchangeably, that is fine. Now, in what way does the Democratic Party miss the mark significantly more than, say, the United Kingdom? They obviously spend more on social programs which could push them closer to your liberal ideal, but at the same time they have considerably more restrictions in terms of free speech ("anti-social behaviour", lol), gun rights, and privacy. I'm sure that there are a decent number of Western European countries significantly further left than the United States, but going by the argument of relativity made by the op I doubt that the United States is even right-of-center, by your definition of the term.

And I said that I didn't try to define it. I was waiting for one of you guys to.

I agree. I never said the United Kingdom was a liberal country, though overall they're a bit more to the left than the US given their social programs. I think their views on gun rights are unfounded and don't hold a candle in the real world, and free speech is a bit better in the US.

I'd say the US is overall to the right, but not the far-right.

 

[Locut0s]

Okay so here is what I would consider a left wing political candidate. I'm sure many will argue that there is a LOT of representation of the following in the US government but it does not seem to be from an outside observer. So to be legitmiately left wing IMHO you have to agree with most of the following, starting for no good reason with social issues:

-pro gay marriage, pro gay adoption, pro gay family rights

-pro choice

-pro legalization of marijuana, at the very least decriminalization. One may or may not be for legalization of harder substances this does not matter as much, though one should be for treatment instead of punishment for almost all drug related crimes.

-tax the rich more than the poor. The rich should pay a relatively large share of the populous' tax burden. One can argue how high the taxes should be, that's a separate issue.

-pro welfare and social services for the poor. The argument that this money should only go towards those that need it and not to funding a welfare style of life is a legit one. But those on the left are usually still for a very robust and broad set of social services for the poor and unemployed.

-universal health care for all. Either a single payer system or something like it that largely eliminates the insurance industry as it stands in the US. One can have insurance companies but they are to be HEAVILY regulated and profit margins kept artificially low.

-government caps on the price of medications. That or government set prices.

-strong regulation of all commodities. This isn't to say that private companies are not allowed to operate in these sectors, far from it. Though some sectors such as energy production and distribution and maybe others should be considered for public ownership.

-strong environmental protections. Low gas and oil subsidies.

-very strong consumerist protections. Consumer protection should come at the cost of profit whenever harm to the individual is suspected. The US is still one of the most deregulated countries in the western world when it comes to monitoring things like safe levels of all kinds of chemicals. Very few common environmental chemicals have been studied in any depth

-a secularist approach to society in general. Religion should not come into the picture at ANY level of government. Having a politician espouse their political views, no mater what they be, should hurt not help them.

-relatively low military budget. In the 1-1.5% of GDP.

-relatively high investment in public education.

I could go on.

 

[MotF Bane]

Bullshit. Fascism gets its power from the same corrupted collectivist tree of ideology that brought fourth socialism and communism. It holds the same views that diminishes the individual for the sake of the "majority" (aka state and private entities that side with the state for protection and influence). Meanwhile it is trampling over individuals rights (both economic and social) while using appeals to authority "The will of the people" to further commit acts of state forced confiscation and coercion "or else" in order to meet its agenda.

And therein lies the proof I have long used for saying that the political spectrum is not a line, but rather more of a circle - at the furthest ends of the line, you've formed a loop and the two meet under a functionally authoritarian system.

 

[Locut0s]

And therein lies the proof I have long used for saying that the political spectrum is not a line, but rather more of a circle - at the furthest ends of the line, you've formed a loop and the two meet under a functionally authoritarian system.

You are right to some degree, though this is a VAST simplification and in reality though 1940s Germany and 1960s China/Russia were both dictatorship hell holes they were also very different. But at any rate none of this has any bearing on the discussion in this thread. If we are to look at the circle as a clock with Communism and Fascism together at 6 o'clock, then the far right in the US is at no more than 3 o'clock. My point in all of this is that to my eyes the US doesn't have much representation to the left of 12 o'clock.

 

[MotF Bane]

Your ideal candidate sounds like s/he fits somewhat closely to the American progressives.

However, that doesn't matter, it's definitely left of the norm in the United States, which also does not matter. The Democrats are left of the Republicans, the Republicans are right of the Democrats. Ergo, they are facets of the left and right wings, where left and right wing are also used to encompass a vast range of political views.

To continue, you are complaining about Americans considering the Democrats to be the left wing of American politics. Do you not see the inherent logical flaw of this? Of course Americans will consider the Democrats to be left wing, because in America, which is the country for which 99% of Americans might even vaguely have a dim awareness of its politics, the Democrats are the left left wing.

That the Democrats are not left wing by your standards in a significantly more left-leaning country does not matter in America; not to our politics, nor to the people, nor the politicians, nor the media. They are left in a relative system, and that's it.

 

[Locut0s]

Your ideal candidate sounds like s/he fits somewhat closely to the American progressives.

However, that doesn't matter, it's definitely left of the norm in the United States, which also does not matter. The Democrats are left of the Republicans, the Republicans are right of the Democrats. Ergo, they are facets of the left and right wings, where left and right wing are also used to encompass a vast range of political views.

To continue, you are complaining about Americans considering the Democrats to be the left wing of American politics. Do you not see the inherent logical flaw of this? Of course Americans will consider the Democrats to be left wing, because in America, which is the country for which 99% of Americans might even vaguely have a dim awareness of its politics, the Democrats are the left left wing.

That the Democrats are not left wing by your standards in a significantly more left-leaning country does not matter in America; not to our politics, nor to the people, nor the politicians, nor the media. They are left in a relative system, and that's it.

Okay okay we are getting into silly systematic now. OF COURSE the left wing in the US is "the left wing" by the very definition of being to the right of the right. THAT is not my point and I think you know it. My point is why is there no major representation of the American progressives as you label them. Cause from someone outside looking in they would be the ones that most people would identify with left wing, not Obama et al.

And saying that it simply does not matter doesn't answer the question either. My question is WHY is it this way in the states, I don't care if it matters or not to the people living there.

 

[schneiderguy]

Your list describes the average Democrat in CA at least. Maybe they're different in the People's Republic than in the rest of the country.

edit: THE country, not your country

 

[Locut0s]

Your list describes the average Democrat in CA at least. Maybe they're different in the People's Republic than in the rest of your country.

Sure about that? I'd say there are a lot of right leaning democrats that would only be on board for 1/2 the things in that list and a relatively small number who would be for the majority or all. But I'm happy to be wrong.

 

[schneiderguy]

Sure about that? I'd say there are a lot of right leaning democrats that would only be on board for 1/2 the things in that list and a relatively small number who would be for the majority or all. But I'm happy to be wrong.

Obama agrees with about 90% of your list.

 

[Locut0s]

Obama agrees with about 90% of your list.

LOL he did to get elected.

 

[schneiderguy]

LOL he did to get elected.

Maybe. But that just confirms that there is a "left wing" in the US that supports the same stuff you guys do in Canada. Or else no one would have voted for him.

I'd say his voting record in Congress shows that he is more leftist than his presidential record would suggest. He's just pandering to the centrists so he doesn't get raped in 2012.

 

[Locut0s]

Maybe. But that just confirms that there is a "left wing" in the US that supports the same stuff you guys do in Canada. Or else no one would have voted for him.

No it just confirms that they are not represented in the government. They swarmed the polls when they finally saw a candidate they "thought" would represent them. I was never arguing that the people didn't exist.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Okay so here is what I would consider a left wing political candidate. I'm sure many will argue that there is a LOT of representation of the following in the US government but it does not seem to be from an outside observer. So to be legitmiately left wing IMHO you have to agree with most of the following, starting for no good reason with social issues:

-pro gay marriage, pro gay adoption, pro gay family rights

-pro choice

-pro legalization of marijuana, at the very least decriminalization. One may or may not be for legalization of harder substances this does not matter as much, though one should be for treatment instead of punishment for almost all drug related crimes.

-tax the rich more than the poor. The rich should pay a relatively large share of the populous' tax burden. One can argue how high the taxes should be, that's a separate issue.

-pro welfare and social services for the poor. The argument that this money should only go towards those that need it and not to funding a welfare style of life is a legit one. But those on the left are usually still for a very robust and broad set of social services for the poor and unemployed.

-universal health care for all. Either a single payer system or something like it that largely eliminates the insurance industry as it stands in the US. One can have insurance companies but they are to be HEAVILY regulated and profit margins kept artificially low.

-government caps on the price of medications. That or government set prices.

-strong regulation of all commodities. This isn't to say that private companies are not allowed to operate in these sectors, far from it. Though some sectors such as energy production and distribution and maybe others should be considered for public ownership.

-strong environmental protections. Low gas and oil subsidies.

-very strong consumerist protections. Consumer protection should come at the cost of profit whenever harm to the individual is suspected. The US is still one of the most deregulated countries in the western world when it comes to monitoring things like safe levels of all kinds of chemicals. Very few common environmental chemicals have been studied in any depth

-a secularist approach to society in general. Religion should not come into the picture at ANY level of government. Having a politician espouse their political views, no mater what they be, should hurt not help them.

-relatively low military budget. In the 1-1.5% of GDP.

-relatively high investment in public education.

I could go on.

I agree with all of those, but I wouldn't say "very strong" regulation. Very strong means it can stifle the innovation corporations can do, so it'd have to be anywhere from medium to strong depending on the market. In any case, more strict than what we have now, as the free market clearly does not work.

 

[schneiderguy]

No it just confirms that they are not represented in the government. They swarmed the polls when they finally saw a candidate they "thought" would represent them. I was never arguing that the people didn't exist.

I'm pretty sure a large portion of the Democrats in Congress agree with most of your list also... again, maybe I'm biased from living in CA.

In any case, more strict than what we have now, as the free market clearly does not work.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I'm pretty sure a large portion of the Democrats in Congress agree with most of your list also... again, maybe I'm biased from living in CA.

No, they wouldn't. Maybe half of it.

And the pic you posted makes no sense. I was arguing over not regulating so much that it stifles competition.

 

[schneiderguy]

No, they wouldn't. Maybe half of it.

Yes they would agree with a majority of it.

And the pic you posted makes no sense. I was arguing over not regulating so much that it stifles competition.

free market clearly does not work.

 

[Locut0s]

I agree with all of those, but I wouldn't say "very strong" regulation. Very strong means it can stifle the innovation corporations can do, so it'd have to be anywhere from medium to strong depending on the market. In any case, more strict than what we have now, as the free market clearly does not work.

Ok yes I'll give you that, depending on the sector.

BTW what's it like living in PR? I know and love the tropic in general, lived in Malaysia for a year. As a resident of PR though you must feel very separate from the US in many ways, given that you are an unincorporated territory. Must have it's ups AND downs. To be honest aside from loving to tropic I know little of central america. I visited Belize this past summer and loved it but that was more of a Snorkelling trip.

 

[Locut0s]

There is no real argument here. Both LOL_Wut_Axel and I agree on most everything. Captialism IS the best mechanism we have of creating wealth, raising the standard of living and bringing a country out of poverty. It's also one of the best mechanism we know of for creating needles inequality, creating poverty, raping the environment, fucking people over, starting wars, and more. It's the balance of the two that we must get right. I'm on the side of more regulation, not less. I'm not for removing capitalism as a whole at all.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Yes they would agree with a majority of it.

Saying the free market does not work does not equal wanting to restrict everything so it's no longer capitalism.

And no, a lot of democrats have issues or won't do anything about gay adoption and gay marriage/civil unions, drug legalization/prohibition, more regulation, a more secular government, and lowering the obscene military budget.

 

[schneiderguy]

There is no real argument here. Both LOL_Wut_Axel and I agree on most everything. Captialism IS the best mechanism we have of creating wealth, raising the standard of living and bringing a country out of poverty. It's also one of the best mechanism we know of for creating needles inequality, creating poverty, raping the environment, fucking people over, starting wars, and more. It's the balance of the two that we must get right. I'm on the side of more regulation, not less. I'm not for removing capitalism as a whole at all.

Capitalism doesn't create inequality. People aren't equal. Capitalism doesn't create poverty. Poverty is the result of not having the ability to do something of value. Capitalism doesn't rape the environment, people rape the environment. The Soviet Union wasn't exactly a shining example of being "green". Capitalism doesn't fuck people over. People who are too lazy/too stupid to be of value to society don't get paid. Capitalism doesn't start wars. People start wars whenever it is advantageous for them to do so.

Based on your post you don't support capitalism at all. You support an economy where the government takes from the productive workers and gives to the unproductive ones to make everyone "equal". That's not how capitalism works.

 

[schneiderguy]

And no, a lot of democrats have issues or won't do anything about gay adoption and gay marriage/civil unions, drug legalization/prohibition, more regulation, a more secular government, and lowering the obscene military budget.

OK, but a lot of them don't. Saying that there is no "left wing" in the US government is completely ridiculous.

 

[Locut0s]

Capitalism doesn't create inequality. People aren't equal. Capitalism doesn't create poverty. Poverty is the result of not having the ability to do something of value. Capitalism doesn't rape the environment, people rape the environment. The Soviet Union wasn't exactly a shining example of being "green". Capitalism doesn't fuck people over. People who are too lazy/too stupid to be of value to society don't get paid. Capitalism doesn't start wars. People start wars whenever it is advantageous for them to do so.

Based on your post you don't support capitalism at all. You support an economy where the government takes from the productive workers and gives to the unproductive ones to make everyone "equal". That's not how capitalism works.

If you think capitalism doesn't fuck people and the environmental over then you don't know the history of the US's dealings with numerous countries around the world. I believe Jamaica is one country that has been the subject of a few documentaries. The specific country doesn't mater all that much. The point is that the US has a history of purposely making the shittiest deals they possibly can with 3rd world countries because it's in their own economic interest to do so. These countries get little if any benefit out of these deals, except for a few at the top who sign on the dotted line for said deals. Often these are deals disguised as foreign aid. Instead of instituting practices that are known to raise these countries out of poverty they tie these countries to contracts with US companies that do nothing but hurt these countries. Often killing off prosperous local industries that could have been the cornerstone of real economic and social improvement. I believe the dairy industry in Jamaica has been such a case study.

 

[schneiderguy]

If you think capitalism doesn't fuck people and the environmental over then you don't know the history of the US's dealings with numerous countries around the world. I believe Jamaica is one country that has been the subject of a few documentaries. The specific country doesn't mater all that much. The point is that the US has a history of purposely making the shittiest deals they possibly can with 3rd world countries because it's in their own economic interest to do so. These countries get little if any benefit out of these deals, except for a few at the top who sign on the dotted line for said deals. Often these are deals disguised as foreign aid. Instead of instituting practices that are known to raise these countries out of poverty they tie these countries to contracts with US companies that do nothing but hurt these countries. Often killing off prosperous local industries that could have been the cornerstone of real economic and social improvement. I believe the dairy industry in Jamaica has been such a case study.

What exactly would stop a country with a non capitalist economy from doing the exact same thing? If it's in their economic interest they will do it, regardless of whether they are capitalist or not...

The Soviet Union fucked up Afghanistan when they invaded. Obviously communism is evil since it makes war and hurts people!