Paid up, card-carrying, politically active member of the Conservative Party (UK) here.
No I wouldn’t want any political opinion abolished. There are some that I personally find repellent but I would prefer them to be out in the open so that I can take them on. I’m cdonfident enough in my own opinions to belive I will win any such arguemnet (and I’m a big bugger if it comes to knuckles )
Also I am not so stupid to belive that my party/side/viewpoint have a complete monopoly on good ideas. I just think we have most of them.
What i find hard to cope with from the other lot is the assumption that if you don’t believe in them you are somehow evil and/or stupid. What is more the left is MUCH more dogmatic on these issues (IMHO - and this is from a British perspective).
Having said all that I think it is perfectly reasonable to give Swoppies a good shoeing. And that Shirley williams is fair game too.
I like to say that I disagree with the Republicans about 50% of the time. I disagree with the Democrats about 80% of the time, so I usually vote Republican (or Libertarian).
However, I do value political opposition. I honestly would like to see a healthy and strong opposition democrat party. They could block Bush and the conservatives from moving too far to the right.
I will continue to celebrate their continuing looses at the polls however. The Democrats have moved way too far to the extreme left. I won’t be happy with them winning some ground as long as they are led by out of the mainstream uber-liberals such as Pelosi and Kennedy.
Just out of interest, what do you call the social democratic governments of most of the industrialised world? Extreme[sup]2[/sup]? Extreme[sup]4[/sup]? (Further again, how many instances of the word “extreme” would actual Marxism, libertarian socialism or anarcho-syndicalism require?)
I favor pragmatism and working for the good of as many people as possible…including taxpayers. I disagree with perhaps 20 percent of Republican issues…mainly those of the social conservative stripe.
The reason that I disagree with Democrats much more often is that the further left they are, the more they lose touch with pragmatism in favor of idealism.
“By god, this isn’t fair and we’ll tax those rich guys to make it better.”
“Does it work?”
“I don’t know. It just makes me feel good to advocate it.”
I don’t want to get rid of them though. They come in handy around election time for comparative purposes.
Imagine for the sake of argument that political positions were really along a single dimension from left to right. Imagine a ruler or yard stick. Right now the parties are both near each other in the middle (for the sake of argument). Even the most extreme person is only a little more than a half a yard stick away from the party in power.
If there are five different parties, and they are all substantially different from each other, you have to imagine five different places marked out on the yard stick. With that set up, you can see that someone on the middle of the right-hand side could end up being more than half a yard stick from the party in power.
With a bi-party system, we may not get as much choice as we would like; but we aren’t ruled by the extremes because one small core of nuts can’t have the same influence as the whole middle ground.
Unfortunately the U.S. is way off to the right on the yard stick, so even the left’s positions as a party are pretty far right. But that doesn’t mean that we’d be better represented if Lyndon LaRouche had as much say in the U.S. as the Likud (sp?) has in Israel.
We’re talking about American politics. Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are on the extreme left of our political spectrum here in the US. The fact that they might be more centrists in socialist leaning Europe really isn’t relevant to where they are on the American scale of politics.
I wouldn’t describe either of them as “extreme” or all that leftish. Sounds like extreme right wing neo-fascist hate-mongering labelling to me. Of course, this wouldn’t be at all extreme right wing neo-fascist hate-mongering labelling in, say, Chile during the time of the disappearances. But that really isn’t relevant to where you are on the American scale of politics.
What about them? They aren’t on any ballot anywhere that I’m aware of. There’s not a single member of congress or any serious elected official anywhere who would be caught dead even talking to them. They can’t even afford to have a daily newspaper ever since the Soviet Union fell and stopped funding them.
Just because you can find somebody even further to the left than Pelosi and Kennedy doesn’t make them mainstream.
And I didn’t claim any such thing: I merely asked how many “extremes” it would take you to describe them.
Might that not simply mean that the US electorate is extraordinarily rightist compared to, say, those of Canada, Japan/South Korea, Australia, Malaysia/Singapore, Brazil etc.?
I would suggest that automatically labelling those having, let’s face it, comparitively small differences in opinion with oneself as extremists bodes ill for jjimm’s criterion of being “willing and happy to consider political views and proposed policies that are anathema to them, and to accept them or reject them on individual merit.”
Well, I don’t really consider myself a ‘partisan’ in the sense that I have no party affiliation, but I think opposing views, if they are given calmly are extremely valuable. I’ve learned a lot by listening to opposing views…even when I don’t agree it gives one a different perspective on things.
Describing Teddy boy as a leftist in US politics, and you think THATS ‘extreme right wing neo-fascist hate-mongering labelling’?? The REALLY funny thing is, you belive this. BTW, you completely missed the point with your Chile example…the POINT is, we are using US standards to describe US political positions. See, labeling Kennedy as a leftist isn’t considered ‘neo-fascist hate-mongering’ by OUR standards…who gives a fuck about Chile?
Sure, we are rightist compared to those other nations. Problem is, who decides where the political center SHOULD be? Why aren’t they all simply leftist to the US?? A country is what it is…its really not meaningful to talk about relative political positions between different countries. The main thing is…are the people who LIVE there (mostly) happy with their own standards? In the US, the folks here are what they are…and are mostly happy about it.
I’m sure someone has done a historical analysis of the Democratic party to see if it is more leftist today than it was in the past. Anybody have a good link? My gut feeling is that it is in fact more centrist than in the past. It seems to me they are barely on the left, much less the extreme left.
I’d agree with this statement if not for the word “extraordinarily” in there. But, the US is certainly more to the right than many other countries in the world right now. That’s why we’re doing so much better than them.
Kennedy and Pelosi are as extreme as you will find in elected US officials. They have major, not small, differences in opinion not just with myself but with most Americans. Labelling them “extreme” is simply accurate and doesn’t say anything to my open or close mindedness regarding politics.
Extreme left would involve calling for an end to capitalism, redistribution of all material goods and services, ownership of all means of production by workers, that sort of thing. Teddy and Nancy aren’t even CLOSE. They advocate safety nets for people harmed by the free market, they advocate progressive taxation, but really … they’re not too fucking far from the center AT ALL. There are extreme leftists in the U.S. but they aren’t part of the political process. And trying to tag those elected officials who happen to be farthest from the right wing end of the spectrum as “extreme” is “extreme right wing labelling.” It is EXACTLY that. (I threw in “neo-fascist” and “hate-mongering” just to add some emphasis to the mix.
(Clint Eastwood mode) When I want to know what I believe, I’ll beat it out of ya. (/Clint Eastwood mode)
-XT
[/QUOTE]
'Twas you who missed the point XT … I was saying that when we have to define our notably centrist politicos as extreme, we really distort the truth … those guys in Chile … THEY were extreme. They put our right-wing bastids in perspective … as do the leftists in Europe.
Ah, but see, I didn’t say ‘Extreme leftist’…I merely said they were ‘leftists’, i.e. left of US center. When Debaser said ‘Extreme leftists’ I took that to mean to the extreme left of whats politically electable in the US, not to the far extreme left. That how I usually take it when people talk about Bush being an ‘Extreme rightist’…i.e. they don’t REALLY mean he’s a ‘neo-fascist’ blah blah blah…they mean he’s as far right as you can be and still be electable (they are wrong btw, but thats another story).
lol…though Clint is getting a bit long in the tooth these days. It looks like a strong wind could knock him down, so the threat isn’t what it once was.
Well, I still think its not really meaningful to compare relative political spectrums between nations but I see what you are getting at now.
Surely it is precisely as meaningful or meaningless as comparing relative political orientations between parties in the same nation? If social democrats are the ‘extreme leftists’ of US politicians, is the US not the extreme right of the world’s industrialised democracies?
)
