Does the U.S. Need a Center-Left Party?
My God, I don't know what you'd call a genuinely classical libertarian party!
Libertarians don't fit the left-right spectrum. I'd be forced to call it socially liberal but fiscally far-right.
Yes, the US needs any party that can end the ridiculous polarization of opinions it has now. Although I use the term polarization very loosely, considering I consider both parties to be right wing. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen. For some reason Americans are scared of left-wing ideas. (I think it's a combination of Cold War mentality and their revolutionary past giving a distrust of government.) Which is too bad for them, because I don't think the Democrats and the Republicans will be able to face the issues that are going to arise over the next century, and no other party is likely to be able to offer an alternative. Hence, like Britain, France, Ancient Rome and Greece before them, the US will inevitably loose its status as global superpower. And China might be there to fill the gap (not a nice thought, considering their current system).
'Far-right' political parties don't really fit the left/right spectrum, as most want to nationalise anything and everything in sight.
I would be seen as a classical liberal and right-wing. I'm not right-wing as in socially conservative and anything like that, which really means that the left-right divide is broken because there are too many variables.
What about a socially libertarian social conservative, as opposed to an authoritarian one? And so on.
My God, I don't know what you'd call a genuinely classical libertarian party!
Libertarians don't fit the left-right spectrum. I'd be forced to call it socially liberal but fiscally far-right.
Or none of the above. Both socialists and conservatives are highly pro-State. Libertarians really do not like government very much. At most they concede government is a necessary evil (which means it is an evil, by the way).
ruveyn
A. I say again, if we need these parties because we have the constituents for them, what is stopping us from having them?
B. If the parties are of equal size, and genuinely differentiated, how will anyone win?
A. I say again, if we need these parties because we have the constituents for them, what is stopping us from having them?
Habit. People are inclined to do things the same old way they have always been doing them unless circumstances force them to change.
ruveyn
A. I say again, if we need these parties because we have the constituents for them, what is stopping us from having them?
Habit. People are inclined to do things the same old way they have always been doing them unless circumstances force them to change.
ruveyn
That is true, but at the same time it is America's own fault that it doesn't have more parties. If people voted for them then they'd exist. Not that I can blame people (especially in highly contested areas) for voting as they do.
A. I say again, if we need these parties because we have the constituents for them, what is stopping us from having them?
B. If the parties are of equal size, and genuinely differentiated, how will anyone win?
I think you're apologizing for the elite too much. I guess I didn't mean totally equal, just equal in the sense that all of them have proper media representation. While there are third parties, none of them have the publicity they need, so people feel forced to choose between either the Democrats or the Republicans even if they don't really like either parties, they choose the lesser evil since they 'know' that their ideal party would never win.
That has been a constant bug-bear of my party, UKIP, which is the fourth-largest political party in the UK at the last Genital Erection (on vote percentage). That and our electoral system (if we had a PR system UKIP would have a considerable presence in parliament).
the republicans are center left
the republicans are center left
?
A. I say again, if we need these parties because we have the constituents for them, what is stopping us from having them?
Habit. People are inclined to do things the same old way they have always been doing them unless circumstances force them to change.
ruveyn
Would not "needing a party" constitute a reason to change?
A. I say again, if we need these parties because we have the constituents for them, what is stopping us from having them?
B. If the parties are of equal size, and genuinely differentiated, how will anyone win?
I think you're apologizing for the elite too much. I guess I didn't mean totally equal, just equal in the sense that all of them have proper media representation. While there are third parties, none of them have the publicity they need, so people feel forced to choose between either the Democrats or the Republicans even if they don't really like either parties, they choose the lesser evil since they 'know' that their ideal party would never win.
?!?!?!:
Who are in terms of this post the elite, and what makes you thing I am apologizing for them?
From where I sit, the only need for parties in modern America is the demand for media fodder - partisan polarization appears to be the today equivalent of the games of the circus - still waiting on the bread.
It appears that people so far from needing parties take the teams they are presented with. If people really stood behind five different platforms, we would have five parties,. As it is, the few people who want a party cannot stand ahainst the media sponsotred favorites - as you say.
And I still do not see how with five differentiated equal parties you can get even a plurality for one candidate.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
The Algebra Learning Center |
30 Jan 2024, 8:32 pm |
Hate crime - Philadelphia children's recreation center |
03 Feb 2024, 2:54 pm |
UNRWA maintains Hamas data center under its Gaza HQ |
12 Feb 2024, 5:31 am |
The New Years Party Thread !! |
04 Jan 2024, 1:57 am |