By that standard, I am a dewey eyed Pollyanna. I think that most people would prefer to. But that’s just the ones I’ve met.
Hmmm.
You’re right, elucidator.
That was really very pessimistic and I didn’t even realize it.
It was worth it though. To read your post, I mistakenly clicked on your name and read the signature that’s in your profile.
I’m all better now.
I just hope we can retire the pejorative “left-wing” and “right-wing” everyone uses to describe people four inches off-center on the other side.
Actually, I think the whole right/left paradigm conceals all sorts of other political axes. To the extent it is useful, I think of a “liberal” as someone who favors the same basic ends as “moderates” and “conservatives”, and Leftists and Rightists as those who want to fundamentally alter the nature of society.
[hijack]Speaking as a Libertarian, I must confess that there are some virtues to a two party system.
For one thing, given that we have a more-or-less directly elected chief executive (Unlike parlimantary systems) there is an advantage to having more-or-less half the poplulation having voted for the schmuck. We already hear too much of this “I didn’t vote for him so he’s not my president” BS from both sides. How would it be if we had five parties and the “winner” had 25%?
Moreover, a legislature with no clear majority has to form coalitions. Well and good when the extremist party is mine, o’ course, 'cause we’re wonderful and pure. But what about when the biggest fringe parties are the Communists, the anti-immigrationists, and the Black Panthers. Which one of them does a mainstream party team up with to make a coalition?
Certainly.
Perhaps. When it comes to political parties nine out of ten ain’t bad. If I fit into another party better I would switch.
I agree but it’s hard to resist the STOP BUSH!!! drumbeat and as long as believers in pluralistic democracy continue to give their votes to the “Democratic” Party then nothing will change. At this point I am so discouraged that I’m considering just pulling the Republican lever at every election. But then I would feel responsible for the death and suffering their inhumane policies bring about.
I don’t believe “leftwing” and “rightwing” are pejoratives. The words themselves I mean. I take no insult at being called a leftist and while I can at times put a big dose of contempt behind “right wing” it still just means “conservative”.
Indeed. Nonetheless it does provide a useful framework for classifying political beliefs.
- Since I think liberals are leftists and conservatives are rightists I don’t agree. And I believe my definition is the commonly understood one. Americans tend to use the terms “liberal” and “leftwing” interchangably. If you want to use the words differently that is your perogative but you should remember to define those terms every time you do so or else you will just create confusion.
- No American president has ever come close to receiving the votes of half of the population. These days half of the voting age population doesn’t vote and the rest mostly split their votes between the 2 major parties. In other words, the president typically recieves the votes of 25% of the population. Or less.
Whichever they find most appealing. Remember that small extremist parties can only influence laws not enact them themselves because no matter who they ally with there are still more mainstream representatives than extremists. By definition. Also note that since we don’t have a parliament a large part of the leverage of the coalition partner is removed. They can’t threaten to withhold their support to bring down the government.
To be constructive, there needs to be some way to define gradiations. By US standards, Bill Clinton was/is marginally left of center; but calling him left-wing, as some did, was an exagerration done to make him sound like a whacko extremist: hence I say it is pejorative. Applied to someone who really is on the far end of the bell curve, it may be accuarate … but we usually try to marginalize them by calling them (L) Communists or (R) Nazis, which is equally unfair.
Clinton is not Dean is not Kucinich is not Nader is not Olentzero, and applying the same adjectives to all is not helpful.
I assumed people would get that I was referring to the voting population.
Which of those groups do you find appealing and deserving of political clout?
Misrepresenting someone is different than simply disparaging them. Calling Clinton a liberal is innaccurate but that doesn’t make the word “liberal” itself pejorative. I do agree that left/right isn’t as informative as left/center/right.
That was most optimistic of you. You sure you’re not left of center? 
I find none of them appealing but that has nothing to do with my opinion of their worthiness of political power. If a party gains significant support from the populace they deserve a commensurate share of political power. I don’t care if it is the Nazi Party. IMO those who judge political systems solely on their outcomes without considering fairness are selfish appeasers of tyranny.
True. I once started a GD thread on just that topic: “What is the best scheme for mapping/classifying political ideologies?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=192457
Everyond on the GD is familiar, I’m sure, with the “Political Compass” – http://www.politicalcompass.org/. There have been at least 26 GD threads to date on various elements of it.
There is the Libertarian Party’s “World’s Smallest Political Quiz,” which you can link to at http://www.lp.org/quiz/, and which will place you on a map with two axes: your attitude towards personal freedom, and your attitude towards economic freedom. This produces at diamond-shaped map with (predictably) Libertarians at the top.
Then there’s science-fiction writer Jerry Pournelle’s Political Axes, which you can link to at http://baen.com/chapters/axes.htm. Pournelle also chose two axes: (1) Attitude toward the State (useful tool or necessary evil?) and (2) Attitude toward Planned Social Progress (or, more broadly, rationalism-vs.-irrationalism). This allows him to produce a map which shows the difference between communists and fascists – both worship the State, but fascists are on the “irrational” side and communists on the “reason enthroned” side.
But I think an even better analysis is one explained (I’m not sure it was actually invented) by political journalist Michael Lind, in “Which Civilisation?” an article in Prospect on October 25, 2001 – http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm...ticle&pubID=598. (As you can tell, I consider Lind a very important influence on my thinking – and a socialist he is not.) From the article:
This analysis stuck in my mind because it remarkably places Karl Marx and Ayn Rand in the same camp! And when you think about it, what do radical libertarians have in common with radical socialists? Rationalism – the belief that it is possible, without consulting tradition or experience, to come up with the best social policies by logically reasoning from a few first principles. The difference is, for the libertarians the all-important first principle is freedom, in all its forms, economic and personal; while for socialists the most important values are equality and fraternity.
Applying this model to the contemporary American political scene: The Religious Right is in the premodern supernaturalist tradition – just about the only form of it we’ve got here. All mainstream liberals, centrists and conservatives are humanists. Radical socialists and libertarians are, of course, rationalists, but different and opposing wings of that camp. We have no important political grouping that can be defined as romantic, unless you count some of the Greens, some radical environmentalists and some New Agers; fascism as such has practically no following here.
For my part, as a democratic socialist, I would place my own views midway between the liberal wing of the humanist camp and the socialist wing of the rationalist camp. I have more faith than the average liberal in the power of reason to reconstruct society along better lines, but less faith than any kind of Marxist would have.
We can solve that problem by electing our executives – presidents, governors, mayors – by Instant-Runoff Voting or Approval Voting. Either of these systems always produces a winner with a clear majority mandate, even in a race with more than two candidates, and it solves the problem of a third-party candidate “splitting the opposition,” as Nader was accused of doing in 2000. See my current GD thread, “Instant-runoff voting: avoiding the third-party “spoiler” problem” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=261969
Well, remember, we still have a separation-of-powers system, with the president (or governor) elected separately from the legislature, so there is no need for the legislators to put together a majority to “form a government.” If we had a multiparty political system, I expect legislative “coalitions” would form, but they would be momentary and issue specific.
E.g., if you introduce legislation to drastically pare down America’s defense spending, the Greens, the Libertarians, and the America First Party (Pat Buchanan’s new right-wing nativist-isolationist-populist organization) all would support it. The Social Democrats would be for it, moderately, with reservations. The business-oriented Republicans would be against it. The religious conservatives (best represented at the moment by the Constitution Party), who regard American intervention in the Middle East as something like a crusade, would be against it.
If you introduced a bill to recognize gay marriage, the alignment would be completely different: The America Firsters and the Constitution Party would be against it. The Greens and Libertarians would be for it. The Social Democrats would be for it. The Republicans might be split.
If you proposed legalizing marijuana, the alignment would the same as on gay marriage, except that the Republicans might be more open to the idea (as presenting new opportunities for the tobacco industry to branch into a new product). The Social Democrats would require only that the new marijuana industry be properly regulated and taxed.
If you introduced some strict new environmental-protection legislation, the Greens would be for it, the Libertarians and the Republicans would be against it, and everybody else would want to carefully study each element of the proposal before making up their minds.
While all this is going on, we still have only one president in the White House.
Isn’t this a system you could live with, even if it lets a few non-Libertarian radicals into Congress?
As for how we could evolve into a multi-party system, see ready29003’s current GD thread, “What do you think about proportional representation in the US House of Reps?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=261571
Well, I didn’t mean electoral reform is important as an election-year issue, this year. It’s not a public issue at all in America, this year, and won’t be for years to come. The problem, as I’ve said many times before, is not that the American people are against such reforms as instant-runoff voting and proportional representation, but that they have never heard of them, and explaining takes more words than you can fit on a bumper sticker. So the really important thing is that we just start talking about these things and never let up. Eventually, all the minor political parties of all stripes will come to recognize their common interest in electoral reforms beyond mere “ballot access.” Then they’ll start working that issue into their speeches, and the mainstream Republicrat politicians will at least have to start addressing the issue, if only to explain why we should all be against such reforms. And then the public dialogue really begins. All of that has to happen, before we can get a chance to actually, seriously campaign for IRV or PR or whatever. That’s what I meant when I called electoral reform “more important than anything else.”
[blushes, shuffles feet]
Please justify this.
Roll on the revolution, comrade!
Cite? Not everyone has your morals.
Here’s your chance! I just started a new GD thread – “What if you could replace the U.S. Constitution with a completely new one?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4985894#post4985894 Have fun!
As I’ve asserted a number of times, liberalism is a willingness to challenge or re-evaluate prevailing social attitudes, while leftism is support for policies intended to reverse or ameliate perceived past inequities. For example on matters of race, color blindness is liberal, affirmative action is leftist.
In economics, liberals properly challenged attitutes of class, but it is also essential to recognize the demonstrable downsides of socialism. To fail to do so is to drift from liberalism to leftism, where many get locked in, having developed a vested interest in maintaining their position in an adversarial relationship with their political opponents.
Hey, this is a great thread! I just emailed a link to my friend the Objectivist, while mentioning Lind’s analysis that Karl Marx and Ayn Rand are in the same camp. 
As well, there are those of us who maintain our adversarial relationship because we are right, they are wrong, and they are in the way. Now, its perfectly ok with us if they wish to continue being wrong, just so long as they get out of the way.
We’re really quite reasonable about the whole thing.
Hmm. Sounds like my mother-in-law.
Who’s an unapolegetic leftist, BTW. Double hmm.
If you’re interested in this thread, you might want to check out another one I just started: “Is American liberalism “dead as a governing philosophy”?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=262645
And hey, Olentzero, where are you?! We need a genuine Marxist’s perspective on all this!
eludicator:
Well if you are right then applying liberalism–that is, re-evaluating your position in the light of all relevant facts currently available (and no partisanship)–ought to bear that out.
I, for one, am never “right”. I just do the best I can to be objective and think my way through to better possible positions.
Funnily enough, I was here the whole weekend. Great conference - we had the likes of Amy Goodman, David Barsamian, and Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair attending and speaking.
So - I can throw a few words in now, and expand later - got some catching up at work to do before I head to lunch.
IMO, the basic defining characteristic of liberalism vs. leftism/radicalism is the individual attitude towards capitalist society. There is basic agreement that capitalism produces injustice (which differentiates us from the conservative side) and that something needs to happen in order to address those injustices. What that something is, however, is where liberals and radicals differentiate between themselves. Liberals are content with leaving the basic dynamics of capitalism unchanged, and seeking redress through the existing political channels - Congress, the President, and the like. On the other end, radicals recognize that society as a whole needs to be changed - throwing out the old system and building a new one in its place. (How that is to be done is another question that differentiates radicals among themselves, from anarchists to socialists and so on.)
Of course, there is no hard and fast dividing line between the two - you can have people who call themselves socialists but are averse to radical social change, like the German Social-Democrats in the years before WWI. You can have someone like Nader, who is progressive on a great many issues, but whose solutions are similar to the “radical conservatives” 2sense spoke of. Or someone like Kucinich, who is to the left of most Democrats, but who still seeks to channel the discontent many people feel into the Democratic party - and back into liberalism.
This whole debate over rationalism being a part of Marxism is something I plan to get into as well, but I gotta kill this stack of paperwork and go get some lunch first.