I've been thinking lately and it seems to me that there is no reason in to use the terms Republican and Democrat in the USA. This is because they are poor descripters. What i'm trying to say is that instead of having a Democratic party and a Republican party, why don't we just have a Conservative party and a Liberal party. When our nation started out, republicans had a liberal ideology, and democrats had a conservative ideology. It is now the exact opposite in how we use the terms. Wouldn't it be much less confusing if we used the ideological terms instead?
Your right it would be much less confusing. To also help stop the confusion people can stop defining liberal and conservative by left/right and red/blue. But alas, they stick with their names even though a lot of parties in history had names that were descriptive. (fed/anti-feds anyone?)
Or the U.S. could increase the number of parties, so you don't have to (essentially) chose between two with bland names.
I didn't make it!
GuineaPig;3665398Or the U.S. could increase the number of parties, so you don't have to (essentially) chose between two with bland names.
We have an insane number of parties, and if people would actually vote for them they would start winning more elections. The Libertarians, Greens, and hell, even the Nazis all have parties. We've got communist parties, fascist parties, druggie parties, and every party imaginable. But no one votes for them because everyone says "It's a wasted vote." And since everyone holds that opinion no one votes for them. It's not some magical legal barrier holding them back, it's simply the fact that no one votes for them.
we have current;y 5 parties in the parliement. I find thier names quite descriptive.
citizen democrats party ( central rights) social democracy (cetral left)
These are the two most powerfull parties
Followed by the communist party :(, greens (environmental right) and the probably least descriptive name of uhm people's party--which is a right oriented christian grouping
But I've never really understood the american system--which party is right and which one is lefT?
Heaven's gonna burn your eyes
16th April 2005
I prefer names to bland descriptors. In other countries, there are some wonderfully named parties and coalitions; just take a look at the EU Parliament party group names:
- European People's Party–European Democrats
- Group of the Party of European Socialists
- Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
- Union for Europe of the Nations
- European Greens–European Free Alliance
- European United Left–Nordic Green Left
- Independence and Democracy
- Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty
Even these are by no means the most creative names, but they convey something much more than "Conservative Party", "Social Democrat Party" wold convey. They have spirit, and that is vital in politics.
I think that 'Party' shouldn't be part of anything to do with politics.
I know what a party is and politics isn't it.
Both the Republican and Democratic Party include various groups of people & political ideas. There are southern Democrats who are socially conservative but economicly leftist and there are urban Republicans who are socially liberal (Rudy Giuliani for example) but economicly rightist so a name change wouldn't actually be that descriptive. Neither of the parties don't want to exclude any potential voter in vain as it could mean one less vote for them and one more vote for the other. Besides, it's not like the people wouldn't know what the parties stand for in general or that the name change would significantly increase people's low interest on US politics when looking election turnouts.
It's true that there are various parties in the USA but due to corrupted & undemocratic election system combined with financial superiority of two ruling parties, those have very little to none chance to succeed as it's not like people are collective, determined robots.
wraithcatBut I've never really understood the american system--which party is right and which one is lefT?
Talking about "left" and "right" in global sense is impossible as the definitions vary significantly from country to country: Where as the CDU in Germany is clearly rightist, in the USA it could be put on the same line with their Democratic Party which is regarded as leftist there. There's no global definition for what is leftist and what is rightist (would be an interesting idea to create one here with active GF people who are interested about politics). Some pro-Republican Americans accuse the Democratic Party being socialist in regards of economy, but when looking from general European perspective, the economic policies of the Democratic Party are rather centre-right/rightist.
But if we talk about two dominating parties (I don't know other US parties that well) from the American perspective, the Democratic Party is considered to be leftist and the Republican Party is considered to be rightist when it comes to their general stances in regards of economy, social and foreign policies.
The 2 party system really doesn't work when the people are almost evenly split. No matter who wins, almost half of the population are unhappy. No politician is serving their country honorably, if the 1st thing they do is see which side the ideas come from before deciding whether they agree or not. Everything that comes from 1 side gets crapped on by the other side, simply because of the source. The people's business gets left undone with the way it is going now.
Bi-partisanism is destroying the legislative process.
but this bi partisanism happens alomost everywhere.
We had an absolute standpoint here for a while when both the "rightists" and "leftists" parties had exactly 100 chairs. For instance the commies and social democracy have a number of different things in their programs, they still both vehemthly oppose the ODS (citizen democrats party)
would be an interesting idea to create one here with active GF people who are interested about politics
create or define what? The definition of left and right?