One country's "right" is another country's "left"...

[mdrejhon 8]

My first topicstarter in this corner, mind you --
U.S. versus Canadian politics.

What I find interesting is that it is all relative:

Our Conservative party is in, many ways, more 'liberal'/'socialist' than the U.S. Democrats (aka Barack Obama). Yet we don't view them or call them liberals or socialists. I asked a fellow Canadian working with a political party in Canada, and asked them if they viewed Obama as a socialist. They quickly said no, and some find it curious that many Americans view Obama as a socialist...

One country's "right" is another country's "left"...

Opinions?

Go ahead and throw dynamite to this discussion -- but take it easy. Please.

[downwardspiral 0]

It wasn't that long ago our democrats were only as liberal as todays Republicans.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[quade 4]

Quote

It wasn't that long ago our democrats were only as liberal as todays Republicans.

I think you have that backwards.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

It wasn't that long ago our democrats were only as liberal as todays Republicans.

And our Republicans were not neocons....hrmm...I wonder if there is correlation here?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

It wasn't that long ago our democrats were only as liberal as todays Republicans.

I think you have that backwards.

Then so did Reagan

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[SpeedRacer 1]

hmmm. interesting points here.


What do people think of Barry Goldwater's (who was nicknamed "Mr. Conservative") claim that he didn't abandon the Republican party, the Republican Party abandoned him?


Bit from wikipedia.org:

A few years before his death he went so far as to address the right wing, "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."[37]

In 1996 he told Bob Dole, whose own presidential campaign received lukewarm support from conservative Republicans: "We're the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?"[38] In that same year, with Senator Dennis DeConcini, Goldwater endorsed an Arizona initiative to legalize medical marijuana against the will of social conservatives.[39]


In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired senator said,

“ When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.[citation needed] ”

In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned",[citation needed] Goldwater retorted: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."[32]

----

My point is, if in his day Goldwater was considered a hardline conservative, and starting in the 80s he was now considered a "liberal" by the right wing, it would appear to me that it is the Republicans who have moved hard to the right.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[lawrocket 3]

This is something that is not unusual. It's expected that each country will have its own ethos. Our country may view most middle eastern countries as being populated and run by religious extremists. They, on the other hand, may view us as extremist for NOT being religious.

What we consider "normal" or "centrist" may be considered "extremist" to others. We view Cuba as pretty extreme. For them, it's normal.

Our left wing is pretty well right of Cuba's right wing. Our right wing is probably pretty far left of Afghanistan's left wing.

It's a pretty normal thing, and keeps things in perspective.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mklaudiosz 0]

some americans view obama as socialist because they don't understand how socialism or obama go about doing things. terms like left and right are relative by nature, and national politics is normative.

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Our left wing is pretty well right of Cuba's right wing. Our right wing is probably pretty far left of Afghanistan's left wing.

The concepts of left and right are useless in that comparison.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

Quote

It wasn't that long ago our democrats were only as liberal as todays Republicans.

I think you have that backwards.

I may have a flawed understanding of U.S. history, but I think both of the answers are correct depending on interpretation of 'when' in history, and what aspect of liberal. Fiscally? Rights? Etc.

History Interpretation: Wasn't the Democrats more conservative in certain ways than the Republicians in some eras in U.S. history? If IIRC, making slavery illegal was something the Republicians (Lincoln) did, and the Democrats opposed.

Relative interpretation: Both parties are more liberal than they used to be, if we're comparing to 100 years ago.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

This is something that is not unusual. It's expected that each country will have its own ethos. Our country may view most middle eastern countries as being populated and run by religious extremists. They, on the other hand, may view us as extremist for NOT being religious.

Whereas in Canada we tend to think of the US as being populated and run by a bunch of religious extremists.

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Quote

This is something that is not unusual. It's expected that each country will have its own ethos. Our country may view most middle eastern countries as being populated and run by religious extremists. They, on the other hand, may view us as extremist for NOT being religious.

Whereas in Canada we tend to think of the US as being populated and run by a bunch of religious extremists.

And large parts of the US view Europe as being extremist because we're not religious...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

Whereas in Canada we tend to think of the US as being populated and run by a bunch of religious extremists.

Although I don't subscribe to that stereotype, more fuel for the fire:

Some parts of Canada is more conservative in many aspects than some parts of U.S. -- compare say Alberta (Canada) to Massaschussetts (US) as one example (on average, anyway)

Alberta is Canada's oil country. Texas North, in a manner of speaking.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Alberta is Canada's oil country. Texas North, in a manner of speaking.

Thanks for the update.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I may have a flawed understanding of U.S. history, but I think both of the answers are correct depending on interpretation of 'when' in history, and what aspect of liberal. Fiscally? Rights? Etc.

History Interpretation: Wasn't the Democrats more conservative in certain ways than the Republicians in some eras in U.S. history? If IIRC, making slavery illegal was something the Republicians (Lincoln) did, and the Democrats opposed.

Your understanding is correct w/r/t the 1800s.

Liberals of the 1800s opposed slavery and were part of the early Republican Party. At the time the Democrats were the conservative party.

The Southern rural Democrats of the 1800s supported slavery - they were the (staunch) conservatives (maintaining tradition) of the time. The Northern Democrats tended to support States rights, which was something of a 'cop-out,' as northern States had outlawed slavery by the early 1800s. (I would argue that economics were just as much a motivator as normatives {i.e., “ethics/morals”}. Northern industry was not dependent on slave labor, and workers in the north didn't want competition from the South/competition from freed slaves).

When it was founded the Republican Party most strongly resembled a liberalist political philosophy & a fairly radical one at that! Liberalism as tending to be concerned with equality and civil, political, and personal liberties and more willing to challenge traditional assumptions or ways of doing things. (In contrast to being supportive of long-standing institutions and favoring slow, prudent change, if any change at all.)

When the Republican Party was founded back in the 1850s, it wasn’t just anti-slavery. The slogan of the first Republican Presidential nominee was “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men.” Early Republican activists were pro-universal education, pro-technology, supported growth of cities and institutions (federal, i.e., the progenitor of the Federal Reserve & the first income tax; state; and private for progressive growth), supported universal suffrage (i.e., women), also opposed polygamy and alcohol, supported what were early experiments in early rights of workers, e.g., see Lincoln’s Speech on Free Labor vs. Slave Labor (full test available through the "Lincoln Log”) sounds almost ... (& I don my asbestos underwear here) socialist (& not in the way the term gets applied to Sen Obama). Obviously Lincoln was not a Marxist/socialist ... and not just because of the whole time dilation issue. He was, however, a radical Republican! (He also was the only US President thus far to have been granted a patent.)

Originally the Democratic Party was the party of the anti-federalists (anti-“Big government”), pro-States rights, rural, and strict interpretationalists of the Constitution (constructivists) in opposition to the pro-federalists, pro-interpretationalist, urban, progressives (Federalists).

Things change, eh?

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[grimmie 186]

Calgary is Dallas, Red Deer is Amarillo, Edmonton is Oklahoma City, Toronto is NY, Vancouver is LA, or Hong Kong, and Montreal is...Montreal. In a manner of speaking, Eh.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

I may have a flawed understanding of U.S. history, but I think both of the answers are correct depending on interpretation of 'when' in history, and what aspect of liberal. Fiscally? Rights? Etc.

History Interpretation: Wasn't the Democrats more conservative in certain ways than the Republicians in some eras in U.S. history? If IIRC, making slavery illegal was something the Republicians (Lincoln) did, and the Democrats opposed.

Your understanding is correct w/r/t the 1800s.

Liberals of the 1800s opposed slavery and were part of the early Republican Party. At the time the Democrats were the conservative party.

The Southern rural Democrats of the 1800s supported slavery - they were the (staunch) conservatives (maintaining tradition) of the time. The Northern Democrats tended to support States rights, which was something of a 'cop-out,' as northern States had outlawed slavery by the early 1800s. (I would argue that economics were just as much a motivator as normatives {i.e., “ethics/morals”}. Northern industry was not dependent on slave labor, and workers in the north didn't want competition from the South/competition from freed slaves).

When it was founded the Republican Party most strongly resembled a liberalist political philosophy & a fairly radical one at that! Liberalism as tending to be concerned with equality and civil, political, and personal liberties and more willing to challenge traditional assumptions or ways of doing things. (In contrast to being supportive of long-standing institutions and favoring slow, prudent change, if any change at all.)

When the Republican Party was founded back in the 1850s, it wasn’t just anti-slavery. The slogan of the first Republican Presidential nominee was “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men.” Early Republican activists were pro-universal education, pro-technology, supported growth of cities and institutions (federal, i.e., the progenitor of the Federal Reserve & the first income tax; state; and private for progressive growth), supported universal suffrage (i.e., women), also opposed polygamy and alcohol, supported what were early experiments in early rights of workers, e.g., see Lincoln’s Speech on Free Labor vs. Slave Labor (full test available through the "Lincoln Log”) sounds almost ... (& I don my asbestos underwear here) socialist (& not in the way the term gets applied to Sen Obama). Obviously Lincoln was not a Marxist/socialist ... and not just because of the whole time dilation issue. He was, however, a radical Republican! (He also was the only US President thus far to have been granted a patent.)

Originally the Democratic Party was the party of the anti-federalists (anti-“Big government”), pro-States rights, rural, and strict interpretationalists of the Constitution (constructivists) in opposition to the pro-federalists, pro-interpretationalist, urban, progressives (Federalists).

Things change, eh?

I would love it if, just once in my career working in the patent field, I got to use Lincoln's patent in litigation.

[Frenchy68 0]

In France, Liberal = pro market economy, less government intervention, etc... Opposed to the Liberals are the Socialists and Communists.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[mdrejhon 8]

To put more knots in a tongue twister...

In our country Canada, we had "Liberals" versus "Progressive Conservatives" for over a hundred years (Until 2003).

In the U.S. at least in some contexts "progressive" is the same thing as "liberal" it would seem -- the word "progressive" is used in some contexts because "liberal" is sometimes derogatory in the U.S.

Now after the Progressive Conservatives merged with the right-wing party Canadian Alliance, it's renamed to just plain simple 'ol Conservative Party.

[SpeedRacer 1]

OK, everyone, let's stick to recent decades for this one:

Quote

It wasn't that long ago our democrats were only as liberal as todays Republicans.

I don't understand this one at all. Everyone knows that in the 1980s the USA moved to the Right politically. The Republican Party saw the rise of the Religious Right.

Barry Goldwater, who was "Mr. Conservative" in the 60s and 70s, stayed about the same and the Republican Party moved to the Right of him. See my previous post.

Since the President usually has to be a centrist to be palatable to enough people, we clearly saw the country move to the Right starting in the 80s.

It would seem to me that the Republican supporters have moved so far to the Right that even a moderate Democrat now looks (to them) like an extreme Lefty Commie.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

To put more knots in a tongue twister...

In our country Canada, we had "Liberals" versus "Progressive Conservatives" for over a hundred years (Until 2003).

Actually the Liberal-Conservative Party was renamed the Progressive Conservative Party in 1942.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

It would seem to me that the Republican supporters have moved so far to the Right that even a moderate Democrat now looks (to them) like an extreme Lefty Commie.

And the left sees only neo-cons. How do you define 'so far to the right' and how is the republican party further right than your 80's example?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[billvon 3,080]

> it would appear to me that it is the Republicans who have moved hard to
>the right.

I think it's a bit of an oversimplification to refer to a solid political bloc as "republicans" or "democrats." There are a great many people who are really pretty moderate and who belong to whatever party is closest to their beliefs at the time.

As Marg mentioned, around the 1900's there was a big reversal in the democrat/republican party positions. That didn't mean that all the democrats suddenly started believing in equality for blacks, and all the republicans started yelling for lower taxes. The parties just gradually changed their definitions, and people changed their allegiances.

Recently the foundations have been shifting a little again. Republicans have become the interventionists (both in terms of foreign policy and the economy) and the democrats are shifting towards a more laissez-faire approach. Whether or not this will continue will depend on the next administrations/congresses. But that doesn't mean that all republicans will suddenly be in favor of invading Venezuela; it just means that party positions will change a bit, and some former republicans will discover they have more in common with the democratic party.

There's a disturbing trend nowadays to dub anyone who switches parties as a "traitor" - as if party affiliation were equivalent to patriotism or something. The willingness to switch parties is one of the things that makes our two-party system work at all (although it barely works at times) and is a critical part of our political climate. It is that flexibility that provides a sort of "check and balance" on the political parties, and prevents potential extremism by allowing people to bail on a party that no longer represents them well.

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

Actually the Liberal-Conservative Party was renamed the Progressive Conservative Party in 1942.

Oops -- you are right -- thanks for the correction.

Yes, my friends, Liberal Conservative Party.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

It would seem to me that the Republican supporters have moved so far to the Right that even a moderate Democrat now looks (to them) like an extreme Lefty Commie.

And the left sees only neo-cons. How do you define 'so far to the right' and how is the republican party further right than your 80's example?

Really?

[Speedracer]’s post was about religious right, which is predominantly Protestant Christian. Many of the leaders of the neo-conservative movement are Jewish (Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Cohenn, Robert Kagan, Donald Kagan [not related], Mark Gershon, Norman B. Podhoretz) and Roman Catholic.

A good example of "so far to the right" is the oft-cited Groseclose and Milyo UCLA study that purportedly "shows" media bias to the left.

The method they used reflected standardized/set a scale based on ADA, which are scores are on a scale from 1-100. A score of 50 is defined as the middle, supposed to reflect the “average voter.”

In order to show the asserted bias, Groseclose and Milyo looked at ADA scores for Congress folks in 1993-1999 (e.g., Gingrich era). And used the scores for those folks to (re)-define anything to the left of them as "liberal." This method resulted in The Wall Street Journal being being claimed as a far left liberal newspaper.

The average ADA score for 1993-1999 for Congressional Democrats was 74.1 (approximately halfway between the middle & far left), whereas the average score for Congressional Republicans 1993-1999 was 11.2 (25 would be halfway between the middle & far right). The majority of Congressional Republicans during that time were far right not moderate conservatives. The median score for *all* of Congress during the time period was 38.0. By the method that the authors employ to set their “cutpoints” [their wording], the Republican representatives of Congress btw 1993-1999 were significantly bias to the right and that weighted score was used for comparison. By Groseclose and Milyo’s method, some moderate conservatives Republicans were considered “liberal.” Very significantly.

There's an example how 'so far to the right' can be defined/measured/redefined, the of shift of some (elected officials) on the "right" further to the right (& away from traditional moderate conservative positions), and how that can affect perceptions.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying