Does the U.S. Need a Center-Left Party?

Post Reply New Topic

Probably. The less answerable question is "what for"?

Probably would call them "NAZIs".

America needs another left leaning party like a person drowning in debt needs another credit card.

Actually, democrats dont' look to be that left-leaning, universal health care is something recently that seems a bit center-left oriented, but I doubt they have been prior to that or have policies related to something else to be that left-leaning, if anything, they have seem more like centrists, bear in mind that the political spectrum differs from the US and other countries. From an outside perspective, I could say that democrats look centrist, and republicans center-right.

In any case, the US seems center-right, even when the president is a democrat.

Given that you're someone who lived through the New Deal (one of the few really centre-left programs ever initiated), your statement is barberous. The Centrecrat Party is filled with Wall Street Banksters, Clintonites who love throwing mentally ill women off welfare and onto the street, and other Republicans lite.

Yes, the US needs a Centre-Left Party that has deeper, more institutional connections to the labour movement, with the qualification that it only run House of Representative candidates and only in the 20 most Progressive districts. Have a rump to the left of the Democrats would be useful for highlighting how centre-right the Centrecrat Party is and for pushing for reforms.

To be fair Master_Pedant, although we disagree on everything I do think there is a need for proper conservative / liberal / socialist parties. All three major parties in the UK have the same policies with basically different wording.

It would be nice, but you have to keep in mind that the US is dominated by a two party system, which is a direct result of our 'divided government' and the one-man one-vote voting system. If we had a government that was based around a unified legislative and executive branch (aka a Parliament), and a instant runoff voting system it would be far more practical. As for setting up an actual third party, forget it, under the current system voting for a third party has the same effect as voting for the party you oppose the most. The best bet is to do something along the lines of what the Tea Party did: form a social movement primarily based around one of the two dominant parties, but not necessarily a direct regiment of one. The Coffee Party was noted attempt, though it really hasn't gone anywhere since it's inception.

What "economic factor" involved a long and sustained picketing of a wartime President and gaining public support via outrage over said President's role in their being jailed as political prisoners and tortured?

What "economic factor" took to task employers allowing environments hostile to women, paying women less, and flat-out refusing to hire women?

Sustained, political activism is responsible for the gains insofar as suffrage and the workplace.

The US needs a left party,
"left" not being defined as it currently is in relation to a fascist and theocratic pro-corporate right.
Arguably, a party adhering itself to the traditional left-right false dichotomy is itself inherently conservative.

F*ck yeah, and STV is the way to do it.

Assuming for argument that we do need parties.

And assuming there is a need for a "left party" as per your definition

Could you hazard an opinion as to why there is no such party [if I am grasping that right]?

If we have enough left leaning people to need a party of that style, would they not have established one? If the so-called "tea party" types popped up and organized, I would think others could do the same.

Third parties already exist. I've never seen a ballot with only two names for President. There's usually at least half a dozen.

The problem is, will the general population ever become wise enough to vote for what they believe in instead of voting for the lesser of two evils.

We have 'third' or 'protest' parties here in the UK (UKIP; Greens; BNP) as well as 'regional' parties (SNP; DUP; PC) but frequently the regional parties do much better than the national protest parties due to the unfairness of the electoral system.

In Northern Ireland, for example, the Democratic Unionists got eight seats on 18% of the vote that UKIP attained across the UK, but UKIP got no seats. If we had a PR system, UKIP would likely have a considerable presence in parliament.

That seems difficult to believe, considering their policies approximately match the Conservatives in Canada. So what does that make the New Democratic Party (our social democrat 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).