Good thing Amercian society isn’t “intimately connected” with anyone else’s then.
This is just silly. This assumes there is a ‘right’ political spectrum and a ‘wrong’ one…or that there is some kind of universal standard. There isn’t one…every society is different, has different outlooks. Our political spectrum is what it is because thats how the majority of our citizens THINK…i.e. our center is where our centrists reside. Our left is where our left wingers reside. Our right is where our right wingers reside. What difference does it make if Europes left, right and center is in a different place than ours is??? THEIR political spectrum is what it is because thats how the majority of THEIR citizens think. Why is that so hard to understand?? Neither is right or wrong. You can respect and understand someone elses political spectrum without having to subscribe to it.
-XT
Woah, hoss–you’re attributing more to me than necessary. I’m not saying that the only valid political spectrum is an international one; I’m saying that “so what?” is an inappropriate response to a reminder that our political spectrum is different from the international political spectrum.
**DtC’**s comment doesn’t end the debate by any means, or render the OP moot; at the same time, it’s useful for us to remember where we stand on an international level, and that the OP should qualify its question accordingly.
Someone might write a thread asking, “Has the best fantasy literature been written in the last four decades?” Someone else might post that Shakespeare was clearly superior to any recent fantasist, leading the OP to revise its question to asking about fantasy novels, what they intended to ask about originally but hadn’t sufficiently qualified.
That’s more or less what’s happening here. The question of who’s not a liberal Democrat only makes sense if it’s qualified to “liberal according to American standards.” Diogenes just reminded us of that qualification. No need to get worked up about it.
Daniel
I agree completely. I think the Democratic Party has moved too far to the center.
The problem with the term “liberal” is that it became overused, much like “neo-con”. Most people don’t use those labels correctly, at least not to the true definition. Thanks to this recent election, everything is a talking point and somehow being a “liberal” became a bad thing.
I consider myself to be a liberal, I do NOT consider today’s Democratic Party to be liberal. :rolleyes:
I disagree…DtC basically was saying that it would be hard to find ‘real liberals’ in the Democratic party, but he bases this on someone else’s political spectrum…i.e. even though we are talking about the US system, he bases if they are ‘real liberals’ on (presumably) the European spectrum. How the hell is that useful at all?
BTW, if I misunderstood your point from your previous post I appologize…it seemed to be saying something that you are now saying it wasn’t. My appologies LHoD.
-XT
BTW, my post was in response to LHoD…obviously I disagree with PinkMarabou. Its like a radical right winger saying ‘that damn Republican party is way to leftist for me…they keep moving towards the center damn them!’. People need to get some perspective and use our own political base line when comparing political systems (or news agencies for that matter)…not some other country. The Democrat parties planks are still considered left leaning when compared to the US political center…just as the Republican parties planks are still considered right leaning compared to US center. What they are compared to Europes political center is meaningless.
-XT
That’s ridiculous. You can’t place artificial geographic boundries on universal principles such as civil rights, the value of money, religioun, etc. just because a broader perspective upsets your effort to distort the picture. Political conditions evolve at different rates in different parts of the World, but the World is still and interconnected whole.
Diogenes the Cynic:
What exactly is a “real liberal”? I’ve never accepted the idea that “liberal” is synonymous with “left”; they’re defined from entirely different perspectives. In order to be liberal you have to be liberating something. There comes a point beyond which the Left destroys more freedom than it creates, and by then it has left liberalism far behind.
Again, I disagree with this: where people stand compared to Europe’s political center provides us with some useful perspective. Are you saying it’s meaningless to recognize that US politics are considerably to the right of Europe’s politics?
Of course I disagree with Pink, too. There’s no “true” definition for any word, much less a hotly contested word like “liberal.” There’s only the meanings that people have in their minds when they use or hear the word.
DtC’s post, in reminding us that the word means something very different here than it means in Europe, is a salient point. Similarly, it’s useful to realize that (as Pink points out) the word means something different now from what it meant thirty years ago.
Daniel
Well, he’s not odious.
But he voted not to invoke cloture and move the Estrada nomination to a final vote. He voted to kill means-testing for new benefits in the Medicare prescription drug bill. He voted to repeal the Reagan-era policy of not funding international family planning organizations that promote abortion. He voted in favor of a bill that would have forced the United States to comply with the Kyoto Treaty – the one that the Senate never ratified.
He’s not on my favorites list.
But don’t liberals want more taxes for indivduals and corporations to fund liberals programs like universal healthcare? Taxation isn’t exactly liberating. Liberal’s desires to enact strict governmental regulating controls over businesses isn’t very liberating either.
That’s why Libertarians often refer to themselves as “classical” liberals.
Suppose Arnold Schwarzenegger had appeared at the Democratic National Convention, endorsed John Kerry, and gave a speech telling everyone how George Bush and the Republican Party was out of touch with America. Now suppose a group of Democrats said they considered Schwarzenegger a fine Republican and the kind of candidate the party needed. Wouldn’t you agree their opinion might be biased?
Who is talking about civil rights, value of money, religion etc??? Who is being ridiculous here? I’m talking about a political spectrum that is accepted by a citizenry as the norm. What the hell are YOU talking about?
Symantec games…what exactly is a ‘real conservative’ then?? Is ‘conservative’ synonymous with the right then? In order to be a liberal you have to be liberating something??? What the hell are you talking about here sqweels? If you are indulging in holiday cheer you really need to share some.
Why? What useful perspective does this give us to our own internal politics? I really don’t get it. Our spectrum is our spectrum. It changes and modifies based on our own citizens perspective and perceptions…it is what it is. A is A. 
I really don’t see how its useful at all to compare political spectrums when talking about internal politics. Do the Europeans say ‘hell, we have no right wingers at all…just look at US political center for gods sake!!’? Hell no they don’t…they have right wingers based on THEIR political center, not ours. Basing where a politician falls or doesn’t fall in their system on where it would be on ours is worthless…its meaningless. Same goes for the reverse.
Frankly DtC longs for our system to be just like their’s. The problem is that our citizens like things the way they are, and change based on our own desires…not on what Europe is doing. I don’t find it either a salient point nor even vaguely useful to compare systems when talking about a nations internal politics. Obviously YMMV though. I think I’ve beaten this dead horse into cat chow by now.
-XT
Since I have, do I win?
But we’re simply talking about Democrats who aren’t “liberal”, not whether youi like them.
I was looking for one of those “liberal vote rankings” that come out from time to time by various organizations. Does anyone have a link that could be useful for ranking the Democrats? That would seem to be a good place to start.
Europeans have Austria. Don’t try to tell me they don’t have rightwingers :). But even if they didn’t have rightwingers, I’d still think it’d be useful for them to acknowledge that they’re considerably to the left of the US on many issues.
Why is this useful? Now you’re getting into metaphysical questions of the utility of knowledge. It’s useful to know who you are in the world, and one of the ways you know that is by contrasting yourself against others. This seems bovious ot me.
Uhh…DtC is “our citizens,” or part of 'em, anyway. Your two sentences contradict each other.
Yes, the majority of our citizens aren’t clamoring for a European system. The joy of our system, however, is that individual citizens may legitimately clamor for whatever they want. DtC is welcome to clamor for a more leftist system, and saying, “Most folks don’t want that,” in no way delegitimizes his professed desires.
Daniel
What I agree is that the press would have no problem referring to him as a Republican. They’d be trumpeting it from the rooftops.
A similar thing happened IRL when Ron Reagan addressed the DNC. There was a lot of ass-kissing going on there.
Huh. Sounds like you didn’t like it so much when your ox was being gored, yeah?
Daniel
But Ron Reagan** isn’t** a Republican. I’m not sure what that proves one way or the other.
But I do agree that leaving Zell Miller out of the discussion is silly. Let’s just say he represents one “non-liberal” democract and move on.
You’re probably correct in this. There is quite a bit of speculation and argument over what really makes one “Liberal” or “Conservative”, but I’m sure you could find a reliable definition somewhere on these internets. 
The problem is, the definitions have been so watered-down because of the media, the pundits, the Limbaughs and Hannitys, what have you. If the TV doesn’t tell you what to think, then what are you to do???
What I mean by my original statement is this, the Democratic party has itself in a pickle here; in the hopes to become more PC they have become “soft” on some of their core, “liberal” views. I want the full balls-to-the-wall liberal to emerge again.
What it boils down to, in my eyes, is: liberals aren’t afraid of society changing, conservatives want things to remain the same no matter how much society changes. Today’s Democrats are too scared to upset the “centrists” and have moved to accomodate a larger base, they aren’t liberal anymore. We’re one of (if not the) last free countries to be so conservative. IMO, we’re somewhere in the middle of the UK and Iraq, politically and socially.
But I’m a crazy liberal, so my opinion isn’t what “real” Americans want.
I had told my counsin’s Scottish boyfriend a while back that I think I am European, not American, because of my political and social views. So maybe my view is skewed to the left, but I really don’t think that’s the case. How is it that there are millions in this country who feel the same way as I do? Many are scared to cast their vote for a Libertarian or Green, especially this past election (like I was). Fear that their vote will be wasted and we’d be stuck with the Bush Administration again. Oh wait . . .
See, your vote was wasted, if I am to follow that logic. Everyone who didn’t vote Libertarian wasted their vote. Every one of you!