In recent months Left-wing leaders in Spain, France, the US, and others have been gaining ground lost to conservatives. In Spain, the Socialist Workers Party won control of Parliament from the conservative Popular Party. Opposition Socialists, Greens, and Communist parties in France have won a major a victory in midterm elections. In the US, GWB’s approval is at term lows at 50 percent. The great uniter seems to have cleaved his nation cleanly in half. Bush, once a strong Vegas favorite to easily win re-election, is beginning to seem vulnerable to a defeat at the hands of a man described by some as the most liberal in the US Senate. Even in Israel, Sharon and the hawkish, right wing Likud Party are losing popularity.
I think it’s too early to tell if the current success of Left-Wing parties is just going to be a blip on the radar, or the beginning of a major shift in geopolitics. But, still I can’t help but be excited at the prospect. Thoughts, arguments?
My belief and opinion is that socialism is the form of government that works best granted the current technological and economic level of the species. So, for the long term, yes, we’re going to see more and more socialism. For the short term, who knows? Let’s see what happens in November.
Remember that a vote for Kerry is a vote against fascism.
In America, it’s hard to even say which candidate will be more liberal economically. Bush has taken up positions traditionally held by liberals on protective tariffs and bailouts for some industries, and despite his reputation his administration has hardly been a lean, mean, deregulating machine. At the same time, he tries to keep the rhetoric of a strong free-market supporter, so it’s tough to interpret what the wavering support for Bush among the political middle in America means.
I think so. I hope so. These things go in cycles. There’s been a dreadfully long period of conservatism. And frankly, Clinton didn’t break that up. If he’s a liberal, then I’m an authoriatarian.
The US is further to the right of the rest of the industrialised democratic world than ever before (and it wasn’t the rest of the world which shifted).
It is difficult to see how this can go on. On the other hand, it is difficult to see how the US electorate could have allowed it to happen in the first place.
That is a neat number, but 60% of a ‘helluvalot’ is quite a bit of loot, even when you spread it over 99% of the population.
Also, I would take issue with your claim that it wasn’t the rest of the world that shifted. Following WW2, Europe (and Japan) did shift to the left. Given the issues they were facing at the time, it isn’t hard to see why, to be sure. America, on the other hand, was virtually unharmed and prosperous at the end. Why change? Sure, the differences were manifesting well before WW2, but I see WW2 as pretty pivotal in how and why America devolped the way it did.
Don’t get me wrong, I think we are chock full of problems in serious need of fixing. But I wouldn’t advocate using a machete where a scalpel would be more approriate. Simplify the taxcode (eliminate loopholes), address the healthcare issue (note the dire lack of details!), and I think we would be pretty well off to addressing some of our major woes.
So, then, you are of the opinion that Leftist == Liberal. Funny, several SDMB posters fight very mightily to claim the contrary. The mask has fallen, it seems.
I think that automatic bipartisan hyperbole in response to a genuine and earnest OP is pollution, yes. Let’s try and keep the debate to the interesting point in hand.
No, I don’t think so. Culturally, America is more liberal than it was at any time in its history; there will be a backlash if the liberals try to push it too far (re: gay marriage by court order).
And how does leftist!=liberal? I’m still scratching my head over that one.
I think caixinth was using the traditional US categorisation of “liberal” which meant “socially liberal, economically leftist”, even though the economic right wing might be more accurately described as “economically liberal”.
Perhaps it might be a good idea to ignore the word “liberalism” in the thread title and discuss whether a resurgence of leftist policy is imminent.
I think it is, if only because Bush’s extremism has finally offended enough moderate Repubs that they won’t be voting for him in the next election. Combine that with a Democratic Party unified (finally!) by four years of right-wing extremist rule, and you’ve got the formula for an upset.
I do not, however, know that this means that we will see a Dem president in office in 2005. The Straussian neocons who rule the Bush admin are very likely to have some “cheats” on hand to retain power if the election doesn’t go their way, just as they cheated their way into power in 2000.
Curiously, I’m now of the opinion that Bush’s election in 2004 was the best thing that could have happened to the Dem party – it has finally gotten the attention of the more woolly-minded Dems that they are in serious danger of losing powers.
There’s an interesting analysis of the conservative coalition that controls the Repub party at Democratic Underground, you can read it right here. I think it’s fundamentally sound, except that there may be some wishful thinking involved in the idea of grabbing a significant portion of Repub moderates. But any moderate votes we get are not just a plus for us, but a minus for them, so even a small gain here would count for much in a tight election (if our votes actually “count” in 2004).
I also wonder if this analysis isn’t another attempt by the DLC to retain power in the Dem party. The notion that the Dems should develop a platform that appeals to Repub moderates smells an awful lot like DLC spin at work.
Our Founding Fathers were in favor of liberalism. At least, that’s the case that Milton Friedman persuasively makes. Milton Friedman, widely recognized as a conservative, maintained that he was in favor of classical liberalism. He makes a good case that liberalism is about what pertains to to free men.
Maybe a definition of liberalism, as used in this thread, would be in order.