Some Democrats tacking left before possible 2016 White House runs; liberals vs neoliberals in the De - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;40325557]I'd like to see a proper party that's centrist on economics and liberal on social and cultural issues.[/QUOTE] you mean centrist on economics and libertarian on social and cultural issues. left-right doesn't work with social issues that well because the difference between a leftist and rightist tend to be centered around economic organization.

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;40329683]Honestly swerving "left" as a Democrat is basically just being a Statist with slight socialistic tendencies. Actual political enfranchisement , anti-militarism, and equalization of the socioeconomic classes- which if you ask me are the biggest issues our country have to face- is not being pursued in any appreciable way by even the most left-leaning members of the Democrats. [B]Where's a decent non Laissez-faire Libertarian party when we need it? Basically just a party that used tax money for the sole purpose of supporting and enfranchising it's citizens, but without sticking it's freedom-dong into their personal lives.[/B][/QUOTE] It doesn't exist because "equalization of the socioeconomic classes" and "without sticking it's freedom-dong into their personal lives." don't go together

libertarian socialists and anarcho-capitalists are in agreement on most social issues(they think government shouldn't restrict us), they differ in their idea of economic organization. likewise a far-right fascist and a stalinist are in agreement on the powers that the nation-state should have, they differ in how they feel the state should organize the economy.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40329902]likewise a far-right fascist and a stalinist are in agreement on the powers that the nation-state should have, they differ in how they feel the state should organize the economy.[/QUOTE] If you think Facism and Stalinism are [I]far right[/I] then you must be so far left that going to Pluto wouldn't bridge the distance. It's scary to think there are people out there like this. On an unbiased scale, Facism is just a bit to the left and Stalinism is near 100% left.

It's a shame that our choices have to be so limited.

Many people like libertarians who are socially progressive, but that does not make up for the fact that a society with very little intervention from the government could easily breed inequality between economic classes. So when I look at social issues and other issues are plaguing the country, the mentality is "how can the government keep private interests from discriminating" and not "how do we keep the government from discriminating"

[QUOTE=bohb;40330744]If you think Facism and Stalinism are [I]far right[/I] then you must be so far left that going to Pluto wouldn't bridge the distance. It's scary to think there are people out there like this. On an unbiased scale, Facism is just a bit to the left and Stalinism is near 100% left.[/QUOTE] Why does anyone attempt to legitimately use a one axis scale anymore

[QUOTE=bohb;40330744]If you think Facism and Stalinism are [I]far right[/I] then you must be so far left that going to Pluto wouldn't bridge the distance. It's scary to think there are people out there like this. On an unbiased scale, Facism is just a bit to the left and Stalinism is near 100% left.[/QUOTE] i said far-right fascism to differentiate between classical fascism and newer brands that pop up(esp. in america). [editline]18th April 2013[/editline] and i never said stalinism was right, i was highlighting that a rightist and leftist can both agree on issues of state control but they disagree on concepts of economic organization.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;40331902]Why does anyone attempt to legitimately use a one axis scale anymore[/QUOTE] Because in modern politics, the left-right scale is still present in a well functioning democracy. In France, we have from left to right: Communists (Partie to Gauche), Socialists and Greens, Centrists, Conservatives (Union pour un Movement Populaire), and Fascists (Front Nationale). These parties fit the axis perfectly, with Socialists wanting more economic control but no social constraints, while the UMP are slightly less liberal for social rights and care about liberalizing the economy.

[QUOTE=person11;40331960]Because in modern politics, the left-right scale is still present in a well functioning democracy. In France, we have from left to right: Communists (Partie to Gauche), Socialists and Greens, Centrists, Conservatives (Union pour un Movement Populaire), and Fascists (Front Nationale). These parties fit the axis perfectly, with Socialists wanting more economic control but no social constraints, while the UMP are slightly less liberal for social rights and care about liberalizing the economy.[/QUOTE] I have a hard time believing there are no outliers. If what you're saying is true you should be able to plot every party on a two axis scale and have it form a straight line. Same for a three axis.

[QUOTE=bohb;40330744]If you think Facism and Stalinism are [I]far right[/I] then you must be so far left that going to Pluto wouldn't bridge the distance. It's scary to think there are people out there like this. On an unbiased scale, Facism is just a bit to the left and Stalinism is near 100% left.[/QUOTE] Yeah, fascists and Nazis are infamous for their economic policy.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40323203]It's especially difficult when most of your voting base consists of an old Russian woman, her cult of personality, rugged survivalists in rural Montana hoarding weaponry, pseudoeconomists, magicians, and bitcoin advocates.[/QUOTE] FYI Ayn Rand is not libertarian and she repeatedly denied any part in the movement. That said, she did have a large influence on libertarianism (though personally I cannot stand her shit). Modern libertarians are moving away from her influence.

[QUOTE=bohb;40330744]If you think Facism and Stalinism are [I]far right[/I] then you must be so far left that going to Pluto wouldn't bridge the distance. It's scary to think there are people out there like this. On an unbiased scale, Facism is just a bit to the left and Stalinism is near 100% left.[/QUOTE] oh yea yr right stalinism is near 100% left the free market was booming in stalins ussr for sure

[QUOTE=.Isak.;40323223]Unfortunately, the way the U.S. election system is set up leads to an inevitable two-party system. The only time you'll ever see a third party gain steam is when there's a serious social issue that neither party is addressing. Otherwise, we're gridlocked in the two-party system.[/QUOTE] literally every democracy will have this problem, it's not just the US election system

[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;40332239]literally every democracy will have this problem, it's not just the US election system[/QUOTE] That's why the majority of democratic nations have solely two-party systems? (Read: they don't) Ours in particular does encourage it to a certain degree, with gerrymandering and this First Past the Post system. Nearly every election, no matter how small, boils down to 2 viable candidates (3 at the most), with no possibility for any others to be elected in that position, even if 'other' candidates make up the majority of the field. A common hypothetical is this: Candidates A, B, and C are all vying for a seat in the national parliament from their district. Candidate A receives 35% of the vote, Candidate B receives 25%, Candidate C receives 25%, and other minor candidates receive the remaining 15%. Under a FPTP system, Candidate A is the winner, despite 65% of the electorate having voted for other candidates. This effect is only compounded further in a situation where Candidates B and C are more ideologically similar than Candidates A and B or C. Doesn't seem very democratic or representative, which is why proportional representation is, in general, preferable to FPTP.

But two party systems are more stable than any other kind of democratic system. Countless South American governments failed for many reasons, but all of them had around 3 parties that never voted with the other parties, getting nothing done. The American problem is that the Left and Right parties are actually Center and Far-Right, and that they STILL have gridlock, despite the fact that having two parties streamlines things. [editline]18th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Venezuelan;40332050]I have a hard time believing there are no outliers. If what you're saying is true you should be able to plot every party on a two axis scale and have it form a straight line. Same for a three axis.[/QUOTE] There will always be some outliers, but that seems to be the trend in most western, and some not western governments. For example, I am not exactly sure where to place the French Green party. Left of the Socialists or the the Right of them?

Just adopt a superior 2 axis system that tells way more

it seems that americans have a choice of compared to other countries, either slightly right wing or extremely batshit insane right wing - anyone moving left is at least nice for diversity if I was an american voter i'd vote for anyone who's pro gun control, pro choice, anti war, up for raising taxes on the rich, pro nationalized healthcare etc but that's asking far too much [editline]19th April 2013[/editline] also what's so attractive about libertarianism? why is no/very little government automatically better?

[QUOTE=shadow_oap;40323523] Also, according to wikipedia, neoliberalism seems to be more of a libertarian ideology favoring deregulation, privatization, for austerity, etc. Not sure how any democrat is a neoliberal based on that definition.[/QUOTE] Neoliberalism refers more to government position on fiscal and monetary policy, it's not so much a libertarian position that you can easily identify based on how spending is allocated. There are not many Democrats who firmly opposed to the consensus of attempting to downsize public programs or more aggressively act to stem poverty problems. They may not be as neoliberal as some of their counterparts elsewhere but there is a pretty sizable block of Democrats who didn't see anything wrong with the restructuring of social programs in the 90s or trying to break from the neoliberal consensus established in the 80s. They were strongly supportive of free trade and globalization to boot, as well as focusing more on supply-side policies. Like any party you've always had internal camps in the Democrats, in this case there are those trying to appeal to their more "progressive" supporters who were disillusioned with Obama's presidency but still hold out hope that the Democratic Party can be a vehicle for their votes. [QUOTE=person11;40332524]But two party systems are more stable than any other kind of democratic system. Countless South American governments failed for many reasons, but all of them had around 3 parties that never voted with the other parties, getting nothing done. [/QUOTE] Well, ordinarily this is the case but recently the US Congress has been paralyzed by some of the same gridlock that is seen in countries with many parties.

[QUOTE=person11;40332524]But two party systems are more stable than any other kind of democratic system. Countless South American governments failed for many reasons, but all of them had around 3 parties that never voted with the other parties, getting nothing done. The American problem is that the Left and Right parties are actually Center and Far-Right, and that they STILL have gridlock, despite the fact that having two parties streamlines things. [/QUOTE] um what about iceland, france, uk, sweden, and norway(among others)? none of those are two-party systems and they seem fairly stable.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40333618]um what about iceland, france, uk, sweden, and norway(among others)? none of those are two-party systems and they seem fairly stable.[/QUOTE] I am not sure about a few of those countries, but I know that in France and the UK, despite having multiple parties, usually switch between the two largest parties. Despite influence by the Communists and Fascists, the French government has always been either Socialist or Conservative. In the UK, only the Tories and Labour Party have been in power, despite the Liberal-Democrat party existing. [editline]18th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=MercZ;40333584] Well, ordinarily this is the case but recently the US Congress has been paralyzed by some of the same gridlock that is seen in countries with many parties.[/QUOTE] Yes, I mentioned that. The government, even when in a two party system, is unstable when there is gridlock.

[QUOTE=person11;40334002]I am not sure about a few of those countries, but I know that in France and the UK, despite having multiple parties, usually switch between the two largest parties. Despite influence by the Communists and Fascists, the French government has always been either Socialist or Conservative. In the UK, only the Tories and Labour Party have been in power, despite the Liberal-Democrat party existing. [editline]18th April 2013[/editline] Yes, I mentioned that. The government, even when in a two party system, is unstable when there is gridlock.[/QUOTE] but they still have these other parties represented in the parliament which means that fascists and communists and liberal-democrats are at least represented and have a say in politics. how many green party senators are there? how many libertarian party senators are there? [editline]19th April 2013[/editline] is it proportional to the amount of libertarians and green supporters out there?

Yes, you are right that there is much, much, much less third party influence in the USA than in the UK or France, and that third parties do make a difference in elections and in policy (the Coalition in the UK, and Le Pen pulling Sarkozy to the Right in 2012), but the result is still the two largest parties always representing a majority of the population and making a majority of the major decisions in the government.

[QUOTE=person11;40334155]Yes, you are right that there is much, much, much less third party influence in the USA than in the UK or France, and that third parties do make a difference in elections and in policy (the Coalition in the UK, and Le Pen pulling Sarkozy to the Right in 2012), but the result is still the two largest parties always representing a majority of the population and making a majority of the major decisions in the government.[/QUOTE] but that's certainly more legitimate than a congress who represents maybe 30% of the population.

The way I formulate my opinions is that I'd rather base my political standings on my reason and my ideology rather then on some notion of world-weary compromise to imaginary norms. Human nature seems to me to reflect a desire to cooperate, but equally have the individual autonomy to decide personal issues of morality. All economic power and indeed human creative and active energy comes from the contributions of individuals, and so logically the most free and fair system would see their returns given back to them in full rather then sold back to them at a profit. Economics are a definitively modern and man-made construct in their present form, and so need to be made subservient to the physical, social, emotional, spiritual and self-rationalizing needs of the people; who after all are the only reason a justifiable organization should exist. Anarcho-Communism seems like the closest construct to this, since I doubt straight Utilitarianism would be applicable, and Utopian Socialism is hard to apply on any appreciable scale and still maintains the problem of a state vested with unnecessary power. I basically hate politics and the wasteland they have created of our world, so my ideal goal would be to make it both as minimal and as dedicated to improving the lives of the Human Race in purely equitable and compassionate terms.

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;40334218]The way I formulate my opinions is that I'd rather base my political standings on my reason and my ideology rather then on some notion of world-weary compromise to imaginary norms. Human nature seems to me to reflect a desire to cooperate, but equally have the individual autonomy to decide personal issues of morality. All economic power and indeed human creative and active energy comes from the contributions of individuals, and so logically the most free and fair system would see their returns given back to them in full rather then sold back to them at a profit. Economics are a definitively modern and man-made construct in their present form, and so need to be made subservient to the physical, psychological, and sociological needs of the people; who after all are the only reason a justifiable organization should exist. Anarcho-Communism seems like the closest construct to this, since I doubt straight Utilitarianism would be applicable, and Utopian Socialism is hard to apply on any appreciable scale and still maintains the problem of a state vested with unnecessary power. I basically hate politics and the wasteland they have created of our world, so my ideal goal would be to make it both as minimal and as dedicated to improving the lives of the Human Race in purely equitable and compassionate terms.[/QUOTE] anarcho-five, buddy!

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40334189]but that's certainly more legitimate than a congress who represents maybe 30% of the population.[/QUOTE] That's true (I am not implying that this political duality is not legitimate, I actually think it is great in terms of stabilizing a country's politics, though one could easily argue that stabilizing elements are no longer needed in the West, considering how stable most Western nations are. The whole talk of having a two party or dual power system is mostly for studying the collapse of Latin American attempts at democracy during the 70s and figuring out the best way to stabilize the corrupt democracies that are present nowadays), though if we go by that kind of thinking, I would say that Congress represents the richest 5% of the population, and barely ever does anything against them.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;40334634]I really wish people would stop using the term progressive non-ironically. It's functionally identical to saying "politically agrees with me" but with a pinch of pretentious.[/QUOTE] Well uh sorry but it's an established well-defined political position.

Progressive is a real thing that refers to pointing to the left but not too much I guess?

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;40335313]A concept and its name are not one and the same, per say. It could be called ham-burgerism for all I care and it wouldn't make a lick of difference so long as if they didn't suddenly start fundamentally changing their platform to accommodate Whopper worship. To make what I'm getting at a little more transparent I'll pull up a defenition of the word progress. 1. a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage: the progress of a student toward a degree. 2. developmental activity in science, technology, etc., especially with reference to the commercial opportunities created thereby or to the promotion of the material well-being of the public through the goods, techniques, or facilities created. 3. advancement in general. 4. growth or development; continuous improvement: He shows progress in his muscular coordination. [B]5. the development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level.[/B] P. much every party other than that one fringe party that advocates the removal of humanity can say they want to create a better world for the people that live in it, the difference lies in what is considered "better" and what means are used to obtain that end. At the same time it kinda-sorta-maybe-not-really implies that other are inherently "bad." To me that comes off p. pretentious because people use progressive as a point of criticism, which is more or less to me looks like criticism based upon political difference. The way I see it, it's a more elegant equivalent of a group of Republicans one day deciding to start calling themselves "The league of being inherently good."[/QUOTE] I guess the difference between the two parties must be that one wants a democracy and the other wants a republic.