Sure, you could go the other way and say that all Americans are liberals, compared to the Saudis, who are either fascist or merely far right religious conservative.
Still it was a point worth noting… some americans tend to think that anyone to the left of the democrats (including some democrats I should say) is a communist… when in fact there are few “real” leftists in the US. (As pertains to the “rest” of the world of course).
John, I am totally confused by this analysis. Kucinich, Braun and Sharpton are extremist Democrats – extremists by the standards of that party, in their placement along the spectrum of views represented in it. Jesse Jackson was an extremist. Henry Wallace, who bolted the part and ran as a Progressive in 1948, was an extremist. By what standard are you classifying Dean, Mondale and Dukakis as extremists? They are not extremists, they are centrist moderates, all of them.
Posted by Adaher:
Yes, you forgot the Greens, who are not exactly Reds even though they draw on that tradition. Actually there are two Green parties in the U.S., one of which is more Marxist than the other. The more moderate party ran Nader in 2000 – and has announced that if Kucinich wins the Democrat nomination, it will not run its own candidate but will back Kucinich in 2004. From the “Political Parties” page of Politics1.com (http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm):
You also ignored the Labor Party (http://www.thelaborparty.org/), which is not nominally socialist but is committed to fighting for the interests of the working class as against the interests of the rich. From Politics1.com:
Then there’s the Natural Law Party (http://www.natural-law.org/), but I don’t know if it can be classified as being to the “left” of the Democrats or not. Judge for yourself (from Politics1.com):
The Natural Law Party recently endorsed Dennis Kucinich’s presidential bid. Whether that is good news or bad news for his campaign, I don’t know.
There are also several non-socialist left-progressive parties which, at present, exist only at the state or even town level: E.g., the Progressive Party of Vermont (http://www.progressiveparty.org/); the Working Families Party in New York (); Progressive Minessota (http://www.progressivemn.org/); and Progressive Dane (Wisconsin) (http://www.prodane.org/).
My definition of ‘extreme’ is based upon how that person is represented across the broad spectrum of issues. “Extreme” does not merely mean being off the left edge of the map in terms of any specific issue, but also in being on the left edge of the map on nearly every issue. Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis held no extreme positions, but they came across as liberal upon every issue, even to the point of idiocy- Mondale averring that he would raise taxes, for example.
Conversely, moderates like Carter and Clinton tend to be liberal upon many if not most issues, but temper that vocally with conservatism on other issues- Carter on anti-Communism and budget balancing, Clinton on social issues and free trade. I call Humphrey a ‘moderate’ in 1968 because while most of his positions were unabashedly liberal- in fact, he was the poster-boy for ‘liberal’ for the '60’s and '70’s- he spent much of his campaign defending the Vietnam War and didn’t make any noise about possible maybe wanting to end it until five days before the campaign ended.
By those same tokens, I call Reagan and Goldwater extreme because of their conservatism upon nearly every position; compared to, say, the American Nazi Party or the Michigan Militia, both are extremely mainstream, middle-of-the-road types.
As for Dean, I’ll admit that I don’t know very much about him. But every position that I have heard attached to him- pro-gay marriage, anti-defense spending, anti-tax cuts, etc.- puts him with Mondale and Dukakis in the “if it’s an issue, he’ll take the liberal view” category. If you consider that ‘mainstream liberal’, feel free, but I think you misjudge where the stream actually flows.
Yeah, but the Greens, Labor, and Natural Law all seem to fall into the same statist category, left of Democrats but right of socialists.
There is very little difference that I can see in their platforms.
“Statist category”? We’re all statists here, adaher, except for the Libertarians, the anarchists, and the militiamen. The Greens, however, are distinguished from traditional socialists by being decentralists – in fact, “decentralization” is one of their Ten Key Values – which actually gives them some common ground with many kinds of conservatives, such as the right-wing populists of Buchanan’s America First Party.
In Vermont he always favored balancing the budget over everything else. He also had a 95% rating from the NRA. The DLC claimed that he showed a great example of how moderate governors can do very well.
He does have the occasional liberal view like being pro civil unions, but he is not anti-defense spending.
Steven Hawking dies and goes to Heaven. St. Peter meets him at the Pearly Gates and says “Welcome, Dr. Hawking. We didn’t expect you quite so early, so unfortunately your room isn’t ready yet. You’ll have to stay with a few other men in a dormitory until the painters finish up.”
“That’s fine,” says Hawking. It’ll give me a chance to make some friends. When he gets to his room, his new roommates are obviously honored to be sharing quarters with the great Steven Hawking.
“I’m very pleased to meet you, sir,” says the first. You’ll be happy to know that my I.Q. is 180."
“Great!” says Hawking. “We can discuss unified string theory.”
The second approaches and shakes Steve’s hand. “How do you do, Dr. Hawking? My I.Q. is 145.”
“Excellent!” Hawking responds. “I’d love to hear your thoughts on history’s great works of literature.”
The third roommate sidles up to the great man sheepishly. “I’m also very honored to meet you, Dr. Hawking,” says the man, “but I’m afraid my I.Q. is only 95.”
“Terrific!” says Hawking. “Tell me, who do you think will be the Democratic nominee in 2004?”
Doesn’t anyone think Lieberman has a chance? Damn, thats who I was planning on voting for. I have to admit I never follow things this early…until after California it just always seems so pointless.
Lieberman has no chance, and the sooner he realizes it, the better for the party. He has spent the last several debates attacking the other candidates and tearing them down. That annoys the hell out of me. We are supposed to be on the same team. Tell the voters what you want to do that’s good, not what’s bad about the other candidate.
Lieberman has drawn boos at the last two debates for this crap.
[/rant]
In late-breaking news, I see that Clark leads Dean in California polling.
Damn, thats who I was planning on voting for. I have to admit I never follow things this early…until after California it just always seems so pointless.