Wanna go Double Dutch?
9th December 2003
AlDaja;5221572From the European compass/perspective most of you guys are so entrenched in socialist thought and reliant upon Government baby-sitting, that you probably do consider Obama tame by comparison...but for those of us who do not embrace socialism (majority of Americans) our compass is very sensitive. [/QUOTE]I'd argue that from a world perspective/compass all of them are pretty close together. Especially when looking at the entire compass from left to right and authoritatrian to liberal(ism). But perhaps because in the US the elections often seem to end with rather moderate candidates you might zoom in a bit more on that part of the grid. And thus anything outside this focus area (be it more to the left, right, authotorian or liberal) quickly become seen as "extremes".
The politcalcompass (regarding US politics / US 2008 elections) site puts it quite neutral and correct if you ask me: "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"Spoiler: Show
"While Cynthia McKinney 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. Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of a moderate conservative. For example, in the case of the death penalty he is not an uncompromising abolitionist, while mainstream conservatives in all other western democracies are deeply opposed to capital punishment. The Democratic party's presidential candidate also reneged on his commitment to oppose the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He sided with the ultra conservative bloc in the Supreme Court against the Washington DC handgun ban and for capital punishment in child rape cases. He supports President Bush's faith-based initiatives and is reported in Fortune to have said that NAFTA isn't so bad. Despite all this, some angry emailers tell us that Obama is a dangerous socialist who belongs on the extreme left of our chart. In an apparently close race, genuine leftists McKinney and Nader may attract sufficient votes from Obama to deliver McCain to the Oval Office. "
For those who are interested, we include here our earlier chart showing most of the candidates from the Primaries. Observant readers will notice shifts in the positions of Biden, Obama and McCain.
And I quite agree, from my euro (and quite possibly "world") perspective, Obama and such are pretty near the centre and the compass seems to acknowledge this.Anyway, in America Obama is considered a socialist within/by his party and from the opposing parties. Many of his supporters and Barry himself have made reference to socialistic politics as a guiding factor. Obama still clings to this as what the people wanted, his "new vision of rewriting American History and culture". A policy that is starting to hurt his agenda with the contingency of Americans who hover near center-left/center-right politics.
Socialist or social? He seems to be working on various more social plans but they are a long long shot away from the level of social-democrats and social-liberalism which is seen in Europe. Though mind you, most/all ( ? ) euro nations have parliaments with seats and atleast a handful of parties rather then 2-3. During some elections/adminsitrations their tends to be a general consensus and call for moderation where the administration cosists of a coalition of moderate, centrist parties. At other times their is an era of opposition, and voters look for parties more towards the various edges of the compass. Depending on the result this can result in pretty social-liberal, social-authorian parties but also movements towards the right and authorian. Hell, in the last decade in quite a few euro countries right winged, authorian administrations have come into power or gained a strong foothold in parliament.
Personally I'd argue that the absense of more then two parties with a serious chanche to gain seats or other political positions in the US might force them into the centrist role. If either the Dems or Reps would move towards the edge of the spectrum, they'd lose their more moderate supoprters and rather then losing some seats, they'd lose it all since it's often "all or nothing". To me this would explain why the US politcal spectrum seems so limited, the handful of politicians or political parties outside this moderate area dont'really stand much of a chanche.
And I'd also argue that the Dems and Reps aren't sad about this. Rather then having to deal with a truckload of oponents they only have to battle it out with one party. They can even try to put the other party in a bad light and damage it's reputation. It's a lot more do-able to point your gun at one oponent rather then a truckload of them in every direction (of the spectrum). More over, if you would convince people that a certain party should be looked at with doubt, they could easily hop on the wagon of a simular minded party rather then chosing to to with either your party or not voting at all when your limited to two parties...
I think that also is my main concern with US politics, they simply don't seem that democratic to me and don't really try to be a one to one representation of all the citizens in the country.
[QUOTE=AlDaja;5222269]The people in communistic or socialistic political establishments (countries) never own anything tangible...that's the point. The elite own and the government dictates. That's what people in American's fight against (those who give a damn, anyway) - limited control by the government, we don't want government to babysit us or take ownership or personal freedoms away, and the rhetoric that "it's for the people" - is BS. It does not give to the people, it does not help the people other than to create dependency upon the state and it creates an atmosphere of fear and stagnation in severe situations (soviet Russia) in it's truest form.
You'll always be dependant on others, be it the authorities or coperations. When it comes to things to public transport, water, electricity/gas and such you often seem to be limited to a few players. Now wether you prefer public or private ownership of these things is up to you. Some prefer private and argue that the "market" will ensure the price is regulated by demand/supply and competition (though as I said, AFAIK you won't have a dozen companies to chose from so few players at hand tend to look at eachother to determine their price... why cut down prices by 20% if asking a similar price as your main competitor doesn't cost you a lot of clients and in the end earns yu the most money?). Others may argue that a state owned network/service takes out the profit factor, and that the services can thus be offered at cost level (though here you have the risk of a slow, sluggish goverment machine that may bog things down).
As much as I here about how great socialism is, then why do those nations (Germany, Canada, France, Bulgaria, etc...) continue to feed off of the Republic we call America. Lets see how well they'd do if we cut the constant purse strings to those nations American tax payers supplement every year. Nice to talk sh't when someone else is paying your bills. I can tell you what happens, they collapse in on themselves (Russia), embrace social economic change to survive (China) continue to boast how great they are while silently kissing our ass to keep alive (Venezuela) or they risk death at sea (Cuba) to escape their homeland to reach the shores of the United States.
How do Germany, France and such feed of the US exactly? I don't assume you are talking about intensive economic relations but more along the lines of the US goverment giving money to (the goverment of) Germany and France? I can't say I'm aware of this... could you expand on this?
Are they receiving money? Why (for what goal)? How much is this injection compared to the countries own wealth? Would these countries do poorly without the US goverment?
If we are talking loans, what about the loans the US has (China comes to mind)? Do these lians/debt mean that the US is build on a rather poor system?
IMO it makes more sense to look at a countries BNP among other things such as freedom of speech, the level fo democracy, justice, happiness and so on to determine if the country is in a good or bad shape. And factoring in the general system the country is build on probably won't explain everything as to why it's doing so bad/reasonably/good.