[Wolfman]

So you're saying that both Kerry and Bush had "positive" tones, whereas Obama and McCain had rather negative tones?

If that's how you want to look at it.

How does that refute what I'm saying at all? Again "Race to the middle" has little to with "tone", but positions. Positions that moderate from their appealing to party loyalists during the primary to appealing to the "centrists" in the General Election.

To the majority of people, rhetoric is more important then positions. And the rhetoric went from (as you put it) 'positive' to 'negative'.

Which you likewise haven't responded to. More than likely because you can't.

Patience is a virtue.

[Todd D.]

To the majority of people, rhetoric is more important then positions. And the rhetoric went from (as you put it) 'positive' to 'negative'.

So what? They both did it. They both were attempting to appeal to the same audience. THAT is what a race to the middle is: An attempt by both candidates to moderate their positions to go from appealing to the most vocal members of their own party (as they need to do in order to win nomination) to positions that appeal to MIDDLE voters (which they need to do in order to win the general election).

It doesn't matter if they changed their tone from positive to negative from one election cycle to the next, what matters is that they were still going after the same group of voters: the centrists that were voting during that particular election.

[Wolfman]

So, using more radical rhetoric appeals to the middle? My, what glorious logic.

[Todd D.]

And, once again, our conversations end with you having absolutely no clue the concepts being discussed, while at the same time thinking you are smarter. And through it all while providing absolutely no justification for your initial, very clearly wrong, theories. Yawn.

Do you even know what the Median Voter Theory states? Are you familiar with the concept at all?

The population moved to the left from 2004 to 2008, for a number of different reasons. That means what "the middle" was in 2004 was no longer "the middle" in 2008. HOWEVER, both parties still needed to capture the "middle" in order to get elected, and actively pursued that middle. This is why Obama was more "leftist" than Kerry, and McCain was more "leftist" than Bush (at least during 2008), but neither were as "extreme" as they were during their respective primaries. This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

[Wolfman]

Followed by you insulting me without defending your own position.

[Meslocusist]

...without defending your own position.

Well that seems like a bit of intellectual hypocrisy. You have outright refused to answer any of his questions with respect to you defending your position. Since right now, it looks like nobody is going to say why they said what they said, I'm going to take a guess:

Wolfman said that an American liberal is actually a conservative. By this, presumably, he is putting them on a world scale, and particularly a European scale, where the Conservative parties tend to espouse viewpoints that are more in line with those of the Democratic party. I disagree with this because it is taking things out of context: If you are going to evaluate things in relative terms, it is dishonest to evaluate an American party in any context but the political landscape of America, in which case it is the more liberal of the two major political parties.

Todd said (In a glancing comment that, in all likelihood, Wolfman has blown far out of proportion) that the Democratic and Republican parties are both centrist. Presumably, he is considering it (consciously or otherwise) on a scale of political ideologies that includes all ideologies, from Fascism to Marxism to Anarchism (both left anarchism and right anarchism). In that sense, the differences between the DNC and RNC really are minimal- Though I am violating Godwin's law, how much difference is there between a slightly more privatized or slightly less privatized health care system (Since neither party is talking about getting rid of medicare/medicaid, neither party is talking about free market health care) compared to the Holocaust? I think that this is wrong too, and for the same reason- it is evaluating political parties outside of the context of the American political landscape. The fact is, there are just about zero Nazis in the US, and ditto for Stalinists- though I suppose there is a relatively tiny communist movement- and ditto for Anarchists. I would say that 90+% of people in America are between the left-most limits of the Democratic party and the Right-most limits of the Republican party- meaning that, in context, the Democratic party is fairly far left and the Republican party fairly far right. You could, I suppose, note that "far left" and "far right" do not differ that much from each other politically in America.

[Doug64]

What the hell are you talking about? You said Left/Centrist/Right, which ignores Liberal/Conservative and Big Government/Small Government.

Now you have me confused. Left=Liberal=Big Government, and Right=Conservative=Small Government (mostly/sorta).

Party websites don't seem much to agree with you on that.

Can't say that surprises me, but that's the way it is - the head of the DNC and the RNC are not leaders, they are raisers and distributors of funds, their purpose to elect Democrats/Republicans. They have no real say in who runs in the primaries and caucuses, or even how they are chosen - that's a matter for the state parties. They have no say in who runs the state parties by what rules. One of the phrases you hear in US elections but that I don't hear much in election coverage of other countries, is "nationalizing" an election.

Todd said (In a glancing comment that, in all likelihood, Wolfman has blown far out of proportion) that the Democratic and Republican parties are both centrist. Presumably, he is considering it (consciously or otherwise) on a scale of political ideologies that includes all ideologies, from Fascism to Marxism to Anarchism (both left anarchism and right anarchism). In that sense, the differences between the DNC and RNC really are minimal- Though I am violating Godwin's law, how much difference is there between a slightly more privatized or slightly less privatized health care system (Since neither party is talking about getting rid of medicare/medicaid, neither party is talking about free market health care) compared to the Holocaust? I think that this is wrong too, and for the same reason- it is evaluating political parties outside of the context of the American political landscape. The fact is, there are just about zero Nazis in the US, and ditto for Stalinists- though I suppose there is a relatively tiny communist movement- and ditto for Anarchists. I would say that 90+% of people in America are between the left-most limits of the Democratic party and the Right-most limits of the Republican party- meaning that, in context, the Democratic party is fairly far left and the Republican party fairly far right. You could, I suppose, note that "far left" and "far right" do not differ that much from each other politically in America.

I suspect that what Todd meant is that the public platform of the Democrats is Center Left while that of the Republicans is Center Right. He's right, and for good reason - each party needs the Left/Right dichotomy to appeal to much of their bases, but both in many voting districts as well as in the case of the president they need to pick up Centrists (and Libertarians that make up much of the swing voters) in the general election to win.

And yes, American Centrists definitely wouldn't be Centrists in Europe or England.

[Wolfman]

Now you have me confused. Left=Liberal=Big Government, and Right=Conservative=Small Government (mostly/sorta)

That is actually exactly is what I'm talking about. You've simplified the system to a simply idiotic degree.

[Doug64]

That is actually exactly is what I'm talking about. You've simplified the system to a simply idiotic degree.

No, I've simply stated the common usage in all the political discussions I've had. If you have different definitions that's fine, but I doubt anyone I've debated in the past would understand what you're talking about.

[Wolfman]

Never heard of Left Libertarianism?

[grassroots1]

I don't think it's accurate to say that the left equates to big government as much as we can say that the left offers a more communal perspective.

[Doug64]

Never heard of Left Libertarianism?

Just to make sure we're talking about the same group this time, how do you define Left Libertarianism?

I don't think it's accurate to say that the left equates to big government as much as we can say that the left offers a more communal perspective.

I'd have to disagree. Libertarianism is very communal, it's simply that it sees communities being made up of voluntary associators. Both the Right and the Left have no problem with using government to enforce community standards, they simply differ on what those standards should be.

[Wolfman]

You could... look it up?

Left-libertarianism, as defended by contemporary theorists such as Peter Vallentyne, Hillel Steiner, and Michael Otsuka, is a doctrine that has a strong commitment to personal liberty and has an egalitarian view concerning natural resources, believing that it is illegitimate for anyone to claim private ownership of resources to the detriment of others.[4][5] Some left-libertarians of this type support some form of income redistribution on the grounds of a claim by each individual to be entitled to an equal share of natural resources.[5] Social anarchists, including Murray Bookchin[6], are sometimes called left-libertarian.[7] Noam Chomsky also refers to himself as a left libertarian.[8] Left libertarian parties share with "traditional socialism a distrust of the market, of private investment, and of the achievement ethic, and a commitment to expansion of the welfare state."[9] It has also been used in self-description by geoists who support individuals paying rent to the community for the use of land.[citation needed]
In contrast, right-libertarianism holds that there are no fair share constraints on use or appropriation.[10] Radical right libertarians hold that individuals have the power to appropriate unowned things by claiming them (usually by mixing their labor with them), and deny any other conditions or considerations are relevant. Thus they believe there is no justification for the state to redistribute resources to the needy or to overcome market failures.[11]
Differing from the above definition, some anarchists who support private ownership of resources and a free market call themselves left libertarian and also use a different definition for right libertarianism. These individuals include Roderick T. Long[12] and Samuel Edward Konkin III[13] Others, such as scholar David DeLeon, do not consider free-market private property anarchism to be on the left.[14]

[DanDaMan]

I don't think it's accurate to say that the left equates to big government as much as we can say that the left offers a more communal perspective.

Well then they are in denial. The left envies the rich and wants to care for the poor via the government. Both of those take big governements to enforce.
Case in point.. Britain's NHS is the third largest single employer on the planet and they are an island. That's BIG government.

[Wolfman]

No one cares what you think or have to say for a reason.

[DanDaMan]

No one cares what you think or have to say for a reason.

I know. But I still post for those that live in the real world.

[Wolfman]

You're the only computer program around here.

[grassroots1]

I'd have to disagree. Libertarianism is very communal, it's simply that it sees communities being made up of voluntary associators. Both the Right and the Left have no problem with using government to enforce community standards, they simply differ on what those standards should be.

This is kind of true, if we place fascism on the right wing then that is still a communally-based ideology. Although I think it's a stretch to say that libertarianism is communal, because when I say communal I'm specifically thinking of things that would be provided universally like education, health care, sustenance, etc.

[Melodramatic]

This is kind of true, if we place fascism on the right wing then that is still a communally-based ideology. Although I think it's a stretch to say that libertarianism is communal, because when I say communal I'm specifically thinking of things that would be provided universally like education, health care, sustenance, etc.

Libertarianism in not a communal ideology by nature. People are communal by nature, and many rationally believe that being part of a community is good. (Real) Libertarianism aims towards tolerance and letting people live the way the want. Therefore communal people live communally and non-communal people live non communally. Of course non-communal people (or people of a different community) might act in ways the community does not like (offer bad working conditions for example) but the people have the choice to not socialize or trade with them and there should (ideally) be no collision between people unless both parties consent. so reasonable people will have "free" health-care, "free" education and will feed the hungry. Others who don't believe in such things will live their own way. if a majority of people (or even a reasonably sized minority) prefer to live in a certain community I predict the people of other communities will wish to compromise and, say, change their policy to appeal to both markets (in the economic sense). in effect this is similar to democracy but leaves in the choice factor.

[Meslocusist]

I suspect that what Todd meant is that the public platform of the Democrats is centre Left while that of the Republicans is centre Right. He's right, and for good reason - each party needs the Left/Right dichotomy to appeal to much of their bases, but both in many voting districts as well as in the case of the president they need to pick up Centrists (and Libertarians that make up much of the swing voters) in the general election to win.

Well, if that's true then I could more-or-less agree.

I've heard an interesting analysis that, IMO, does describe the difference between "left" and "right" fairly well: It's part of a two-axis political spectrum called the Pournelle Chart. This chart has two axes: One for "Statism"- I think that that one needs no explanation. The other one is "Rationalism"- which is defined as "Attitude towards planned social progress". I think that this is the primary divider between what is generally referred to as the "Right" and what is generally referred to as the "Left". It's not statism- although planned social progress is generally seen to happen through the state, which is after all probably the organization that is theoretically best capable of it. On the other hand, since the right tends not to believe in planned social progress, they resort to tradition. Given the nature of the modern world, tradition will not remain well-preserved without some sort of enforcement. In this case, the state, although in the past the church/other religious organization also held this role.