Keep it polite people. đ
Because what the US considers left (universal health care, helping the poor, school lunches and affordable education) is considered middle of the road normal stuff in Europe and other developed countries.
Even the historical, biggest right wing party in Denmark would not remove any of the things you mentioned, except school lunches.
As a proud American wingnut, I vehemently denounce these so-called "benefits" that you claim are merely considered middle-of-the-road in other parts of the world. Let us break it down for the sake of argument.
First off, Universal Health Care is nothing more than a government-controlled monopoly on healthcare services. This is the first step toward socialized medicine, which has proven to be detrimental to the medical industry worldwide. In the name of equality, doctors will no longer strive to excel in their fields, as their paychecks will not reflect their efforts. The result? A decline in quality of care, longer wait times, and diminishing innovation in the field. This is how the slippery slope begins!
Next on your list is 'helping the poor.' While this sounds like a noble cause, it must be understood that government intervention is neither necessary nor effective when it comes to uplifting individuals out of poverty. It's time we stop enabling dependence on handouts. Instead, we should promote personal responsibility and self-relianceâcore American values, after all. Only by standing on one's own two feet can a person truly gain an appreciation for life's hardships, and ultimately, its rewards.
Moving onto school lunches, let us examine our Founding Fathers' vision for the country. They cherished individual freedom above all else. By providing free meals to students, we're essentially stifling entrepreneurship by removing the incentive for young people to start businesses that could potentially provide lunch services to schools. Additionally, such measures only serve to deepen the divide between the haves and have-nots. Why should children who are fortunate enough to receive these free lunches continue working hard if they know they'll always be provided for?
Last but not least, affordable education is nothing more than a clever Trojan horse for communist brainwashing. When the cost of higher education is reduced, the barriers to entry for subversive ideologies also decrease. We cannot sit idly by while our youth are corrupted with socialist propaganda. In fact, the price tag of college tuition serves as a natural selection process that ensures only those who value their education will pursue it, consequently maintaining the quality of graduates entering the workforce.
In conclusion, I implore you to reconsider your support for these so-called "middle of the road" concepts. These policies may sound pleasant in theory, but make no mistake; they're merely disguised stepping stones toward a godless society where individuals cease to think or act independently. The American Dream would die a slow and painful death under this system. First, free lunches, next COMMUNISM!
This hurts to read.
I know it's satire, but this is like... 5% more satirical than actual beliefs on the topic at some points. The helping the poor section in particular.
A lot of people have left-leaning economic views ( tax the rich ) but there's basically no political or media representation of those views. ( because the rich run the media and government )
This is the correct answer.
There is social liberalism to satisfy mainstream liberalism but there is little to no representation on behalf of fiscal liberalism.
Easy: even if you vote for Bernie that's still at best center-left. The US just really, really leans right overall: there's center-right (democrats) and far-right (republicans) and that's about it.
You guys are so afraid of socialism no party dares venture the true left.
Americans being afraid of socialism is proof that propaganda works. It's literally for the people.
As does decades of systematically defunding education. The decades of leaded gas/paint by prior generations probably weren't helping...
And a good chunk of our parties are now far far right.
Added bonus: it's not just socialism that we're afraid of. We fear tons of things now. We've become a nation of fear and boiling hate under the hood and it's truly toxic.
Yes, I've been working to leave for a few years now. My children shouldn't have to grow up in a culture of barely surviving, anxiety & fearful people scrabbling over scraps left to us by the ultra wealthy.
Because the American left would be considered right wing in most of the world.
Because there is no party available to elect, who care for the workers/people.
You have a system that is designed to take money from the poor and lower class and give it to the rich. You don't have proper workers rights, spend about twice the amount for healthcare compared to an European person and get substantially less out of it. People work more than 40h/week in more than one job and can't make ends meet... There are vast rural parts that look more like a third world country. Everything is made for commerce and nobody cares for LGBT people or women unless there's some money or publicity in it.
And you have about 2 parties who both participate and stand for that scheme.
I agree. In my opinion there are two huge dominating factors.
First is the almost ubiquitous winner-takes-all election structure in the US, leading to the two party system. There is, bar none, no fair competition in US government at a level high enough to matter.
Second, the lack of term limits allows certain people in certain positions to perpetuate momentum. In part this happens by hand picking successors through brute-force out funding the competition (in part due to the economic disparity that others in this thread have mentioned).
Sure. Also silly tactics like Gerrymandering need to stop.
I'm not sure if these are the most pressing topics.
I think for one lobbyism needs to go for good. It's deeply undemocratic to give people money and then they'll pass your laws. And not the ones that'd benefit the people who elected them.
Maybe the members of the senate should be exchanged. Seems to me they're playing kindergarten games all day, blocking everything instead of doing their job.
And media is a big part if a democracy. And the media situation in the US seems beyond bad. People need actual information to make good decisions who to elect. Not a show filled with emotion where two old men compete against each orher like in a staged wrestling match.
And you need more parties. And they need to get like 10-15% of the votes. For example a party addressing the young people who complain that they never can afford to buy a house like their parents were still able to buy. A party catering to the people who don't live in the big cities. The farmers and rural people with different needs. A party who stands for the lower class people, the workers. Maybe something green, repairing the power grid in Texas and adding some more solar in the sunny south to the oil.
This image from 2020 sums it up decently...
Also: you guys messed up the colors for the parties, red is for left leaning parties, blue is for right leaning. But I guess that is just the US being the US, like temperature, weight and distance units.
For 30 years it was the same way as the UK, based on the system. It wasn't until Gore v Dubya that the NYT printed it in colour with red being republican. The reason? Both red and republican start with R.... They really knew their audience!
Because liberals are just center of right. If you go too far left things become better for workers and not the ruling shit heads.
Lol
what happens when you go far left??
my last interaction with them convinced me they aren't any different from the alt right.
Allow me to enlighten you by illustrating how both sides are absolutely not the same
Some highlights:
There is a stark difference in the means with which the two groups engage in acts of extremism. In a study evaluating Left-Wing and Right-Wing domestic extremism between 1994 and 2020, there was one fatality as the result of Left-Wing extremism, versus 329 fatalities resulting from Far Right extremism in that 25 year period. [5]
The Far-Right movement is the oldest and most deadly form of domestic terrorism in the United States, and The Anti-Defamation League Center on Extremism found that the Far-Right is responsible for 98% of extremist murders in the U.S. [24] Furthermore, for nearly every year since 2011, Far-Right terrorist attacks/plots have accounted for over half of all terror attacks/plots in the United States. [21]
In the U.S., Right-Wing extremism was responsible for two-thirds of all failed, foiled, or successful terror attacks in 2019, and was responsible for 90% of attacks in the first half of 2020 alone. [21] Since 2013, Far-Right extremism has been responsible for more terror attacks/plots than the Left-Wing, ethnonationalism, or religiously motivated attacks/plots. [21]
These are excerpts from a blog post of mine, but I have ads turned off and do not benefit in any way from it.
When you go far left, you have ideologies like Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism, all ideologies that oppose unjust hierarchy and advocate for the good of all.
The far-right is completely different from the far-left, because the far-right has ideologies like fascism and feudalism. This is an inherently violent, reactionary position found to uphold the status quo, ie the division of power, via absolute measures.
These are not the same.
This simply means you're either a liberal or a fascist.
Other people have already posted good answers so I just want to add a couple things.
If you want a very simple, concrete example: Healthcare. It depends on how you count, but more than half the world's countries have some sort of free or low cost public healthcare, whereas in the US, the richest country in the history of countries, that's presented as radical left wing kooky unrealistic communist Bernie idea. This isn't an example of a left-wing policy that we won't adopt, but of what in much of the world is a normal public service that we can't adopt because anti-socialism in this country is so malignant and metastasized that it can be weaponized against things that are just considered normal public services almost like roads in other countries.
A true left wing would support not just things like healthcare, but advocate for an economic system in which workers have control over their jobs, not the bosses. That is completely absent.
Also, this meme:
It's glib, but it's not wrong. Both parties routinely support American militarism abroad. Antimilitarism in favor of internationalism has been a corner stone for the left since the left began.
in my world, that's called same shit different pile.
also,while i am no right wing supporter, i constantly run into leftist who wouldn't hesitate to brand me a phobe of their convenience ,none of the right leaning people i interacted with does this... anecdotal i know.
Yeah, but no one lives in your world but you. In the real world, you're so hilariously off the mark.
i constantly run into leftist who wouldn't hesitate to brand me a phobe of their convenience ,none of the right leaning people i interacted with does this... anecdotal i know.
Maybe the leftist has a point because you actually align with the right? Crazy, I know, but I've seen this argument play out irl more than once with some rightoids that loved to pretend their politics weren't right aligned.
If the party I vote for in Germany would be one in the US they probably would be banned for being communists or something like that while here they're a widely accepted part of the goverment.
Which party is that?
Because all the true is gone.
A few years ago I would have agreed with this statement. But lately, I've seen a change described in several press articles and news pieces. The younger generations in the US demand true social justice and aren't afraid to say they're socialists, against capitalism or consumerism. It's a burgeoning revolution of course, since the establishment is still in control of traditional political parties. But this crack in the old broken system could bring about positive change in the long run. At least I hope so.
There's no leftist party, nothing Socialist in the least. The furthest "left" you go is the DNC, which is liberal, and therefore right wing. The furthest right you go is the GOP, which is fascist.
Compared to the rest of the first world countries, our farthest left candidates are relatively moderate.
Examples of true left would be codeterminisn in Germany and banning tuition fees in Finland.
Politics is about power structures. Both of America's parties support the same structure, capitalism.
@[email protected] One way to think about "the left" is that it values freedom from domination. Who in the US is fighting to reduce the level of domination we experience in important areas of life (health care, education, food, housing to name a few)? Should we really have to pay and put ourselves into debt--thereby becoming dominated--to go to school, live somewhere, or maintain our health? Even the so-called left in the US supports this arrangement generally; at best they fight over the details, not the structure itself.
It also funnels down to freedom from bureaucracy too. Look at how hard it is in many places to legally build a non-fancy home on your own property. Endless restrictions, regulations, permits and inspections. Nobody is trying to free us from this.
Right! And the US Democratic party seems to be obsessed with means testing, so that many times when there is government assistance available people who need it are forced to subject themselves to intrusive surveillance, frequent paperwork and sometimes shifting requirements, etc. It's rare (in my experience) to hear anyone critique this state of affairs, let alone make substantive moves to change it.
I think there's value in what you're calling attention to.
"Freedom" vs "domination" though has nothing to do with the left or right of a government (in theory). You're actually referring to libertarianism vs authoritarianism, which is (again, in theory) independent from economic structure.
@[email protected] I did not draw a dichotomy nor make a universal definition. I stated that the left is concerned with freedom from domination, which is undeniably true. What else do words like "equality" and "equity" mean? I did not state or suggest that this was the only concern, but it's clearly an important one.
No. Capitalism, feudalism, monarchism, and so forth are built on domination, ie hierarchy, while leftist structures such as Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism advocate collective ownership so as to combat this.
The reason that type of left is ignored because it's dumber than libertarianism. At least the mirror of it realizes someone has to pay for it (perhaps those want to use it), and just doesn't like the coercive mandate. You, though, both don't want to be coerced AND think it all oughtta be free because....forcing people to give you free shit is not being dominated? "I want to be a lazy bully" isn't the intellectual flex you think it is.
@[email protected] Thank you for supplying the "someone has to pay for it" canard, which is one of many reasons the US doesn't have a functional left politics. Neoclassical economics brain poisoning.
If one were to gather political parties from around the world and sort them as left-leaning, center, or right-leaning, one could do so. However when it came time to compare the left-leaning parties of other developed nations with the left-leaning parties of the united states, it would quickly become apparent that the "most-left" party in the united states aligns with center-right and far-right parties of other developed nations. So, doing such analysis you quickly come to realize that the united states has no true left-wing party. We have conservative and conservative-light. It should also be noted that the conservative party in the united states is much further right than most other developed nations.
Also, remember, right-left is a duopoly, much like Pepsi and Coke. There are so many more dimensions to politics than right-left, there's a thousand different parties for every ideology. For more info on this, check out the podcast linked at the end. Support ranked choice voting if you want to take steps to end this duopoly. What do you have to lose? Entrenched life-long, un-removeable politicians. What do you have to gain? Choice. Variety. More direct democratic representation and politicians that better reflect their voter's interests.
Freakanomics
Episode 356
Americaâs Hidden Duopoly
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/americas-hidden-duopoly-2/Two-party voting systems babyyyyyy
See also: the UK, most ex-British colonies
It's simple really : the US left is liberal, thus it is not truly the left.
If "they" would provide a definition of "true left" then maybe we can discuss it. Otherwise, it's so impossibly vague, who could possibly answer this question?
It is not difficult to infer the intent behind what they mean and answer the question, but that would require some effort.
It is much easier to pedantically critique word choice. That requires no effort.I will help you. When an object X is "true X", that usually means the same base item X, with greater magnitude, so "true X" would be a X-leaning political philosophy with a greater magnitude. So taking left-wing policies for example, it could be paid maternity and paternity leave, worker's rights, a social safety net, yearly vacation days, and such. In this limited example, the united states has none of these policies enforced on a national level. These are policies that would be included in even center-left politics. So it could be said that the united states has no "true left" because the policies enacted most frequently represent mostly right or far-right ideology. Tax cuts for corporations, slashing of retirement funds, removal of protection for the environment, etc.
The use of this "true left" terms in american politics is especially prescient because the liberal party, if removed from the united states and placed into any other political environment, would be a right-wing party. Basically, the liberal party in the united states isn't left-leaning if we look at global standards. It is a center-right or right-wing neoliberalism at best. Thus folks in the united states often say that there is no "true-left" party.
Hope this helps.
Leftism is about being egalitarian. Everyone is equal, power is shared equally, and that equality is protected. There many very different paths and approaches to this conceptually. @[email protected] gave a great overview of some basic specific policies below.
Rightism is about consolidation of power. Since power and wealth are inextricably linked (two sides of the same coin, as it were), the defining feature of Rightism is hoarding of wealth and entrenchment of power.
Looking at our two major parties, their platforms, their policies, and their behavior as organizations, itâs easy to tell that neither meets the definition of Leftist.
What parties in which countries would you consider true leftist?
Because they're idiots that haven't bothered to pay attention.
What is the left to you? Does a major party that wins election advocates and brings bills for this platform on a national united scale?
Who are "they"? This is the first time I've ever heard that statement.
What leftist party is there in the US that is centered around some form of Socialism that controls any meaningful amount of the State?
I've never heard this before. The US has "left" and "right" like everyone else, not that I don't consider those terms entirely based on imaginary association. I always found it intriguing "left and right" is a scale but policies themselves are seen as binary. Just because the "left" does not come across as represented in this particular culture does not silence them, at least not at the moment.
This is because there is no true left in the US.
The American left has moved so much towards the right that it is mostly centre to right
You say that as if there aren't people of every political view in almost every country and/or that the US is weeding them out. What the representation trends say do not speak for whether there has always existed those of viewpoints further down a scale. Marxists, Communists, and Socialists, both appreciated and not, can be found scattered across US traditional history and coloring the geography of some of the fifty states, such as parts of New York and Vermont and in Louisiana where Huey Long was once a governor who fell just short of being considered Communist. There is indeed a community in the US that one might call "the true left", even if the people who end up elected are generic politicians. It sounds much like the "non-Roman-pagan philosophies didn't exist in Rome" view.
