[grassroots1]

Well, yes, and Russia was headed by an authoritarian dictator. Imperialism is not left-wing.

[The Immortal Goon]

How is the DNC socially conservative? By what standards?

The trouble with all of this stuff is that people like to pretend that our political parties are:

1. Parliamentary instead of congressional, which is false
2. Not taking part in a federal system

In the case of 1, the biggest difference is that you're voting for an individual that happens to be part of a party that is necessarily very loose. The individual can defect and vote for whatever he or she wants. This is not true in most parliamentary systems where one would be kicked out of the party real fucking fast for voting against the lines.

In the case of the second, the parties represent such hugely vast and diverse parts of the country that they cannot be consistent. Local portions of the party tend to vary widely.

A better way to look at the Democrats and Republicans are huge umbrella general factions that hold many different political parties within them. For instance, the largest leftist "party' in the US would be the Congressional Progressive Caucus - which tends to clash with the Democratic Leadership Council and Blue Dogs more than they would with - say - the Log Cabin Republicans on a lot of issues. This said, it's not as far left as the Harringtonites

[grassroots1]

Interesting, TIG. I think you're right that it's hard to say anything conclusive about these umbrella parties if only because they cover such a vast geographical area.

[Todd D.]

So, we have two centrist parties with neither one being Liberal or Conservative?

More or less. We have two centrist parties that differ slightly on various issues consistently that more or less align them with "liberal" and "conservative" ideologies. Haven't you ever heard of the "race to the middle"?

Imperialism is not left-wing.

Neither is it "right wing". It's not even really on the scale we commonly use to determine "left" and "right". It's a foreign policy issue, and can be used in both leftist and right-wing ideologies.

[DanDaMan]

Well, yes, and Russia was headed by an authoritarian dictator. Imperialism is not left-wing.

Thank you for clarifying that Stalin and Hitler were political equals on the same wing.
So that now means Libertarians like Todd and Ron Paul are left wing, correct?

[Wolfman]

More or less. We have two centrist parties that differ slightly on various issues consistently that more or less align them with "liberal" and "conservative" ideologies. Haven't you ever heard of the "race to the middle"?

The race to the middle only exists in good times, which is kind of something that people who know what they're talking about have known for years.

[grassroots1]

Thank you for clarifying that Stalin and Hitler were political equals on the same wing.

I believe they were both authoritarians and in that sense not very different. In another sense, they are. If you're trying to make some weird, cheap point against the left-wing by claiming that the Nazis and the USSR were both socialist, you may as well get it over with.

Neither is it "right wing". It's not even really on the scale we commonly use to determine "left" and "right". It's a foreign policy issue, and can be used in both leftist and right-wing ideologies.

I don't think American imperialism can be considered anything but right-wing, honestly. We've forcibly supported what we desired, which has tended to be authoritarian leaders who are beholden to American interests.

[DanDaMan]

Well, yes, and Russia was headed by an authoritarian dictator. Imperialism is not left-wing.

Thank you for clarifying that Stalin and Hitler were political equals on the same wing.

I believe they were both authoritarians and in that sense not very different. In another sense, they are.

And what sense is that that would make them polar opposites?

[Todd D.]

The race to the middle only exists in good times, which is kind of something that people who know what they're talking about have known for years.

Both candidates raced to the middle in 2008 (Compare Obama's positions during his race against Hillary to his positions in the general election, specifically on both Health Care and Iraq, if you don't believe), yet hardly anyone would consider that "good times". The only difference was that the "middle" in 2008 was a bit more to the "left" than it was in 2004 or 2000.

I don't think American imperialism can be considered anything but right-wing, honestly. We've forcibly supported what we desired, which has tended to be authoritarian leaders who are beholden to American interests.

Again, it really depends on how we're defining "left" and "right". Are we talking about the act of imperialism itself, or the specific implementation of AMERICAN imperialism?

[grassroots1]

To be honest I don't have a strong enough grasp of the history of Nazi Germany or the USSR, in terms of their actual policies, to speak on this. Though it would be interesting to know the extent of nationalization in Germany vs the USSR around the time WWII began.

I suppose one central difference is that Stalin eventually came to power in a system that had recently been created through a revolution, while Hitler came to power through legal channels. Admittedly this isn't saying very much.

Again, it really depends on how we're defining "left" and "right". Are we talking about the act of imperialism itself, or the specific implementation of AMERICAN imperialism?

Well, can you give me an example of a more ambiguous type of imperialism?

And what sense is that that would make them polar opposites?

Also, DDM, you're the only one who might want to make them polar opposites. I can't even predict your ridiculous statements anymore.

[Todd D.]

Well, can you give me an example of a more ambiguous type of imperialism?

Well, the most direct would be the Soviet imperialism with regards to the Communist rebels in both North Korea and Afghanistan, certainly analogous to our funding of the opposite sides of those respective wars.

My point is that forceful interventionion in other nations' affairs can be done by both "left wing" and "right wing" governments, at least as we define the terms commonly in American nomenclature. As it stands we have majorly interventionist wars started by both the left wing (Bosnia, Serbia) and right wing (Iraq, Iraq again) in the last 25 years. If we were to define one side as specifically isolationist or non-interventionist, then that's different.

[Wolfman]

Both candidates raced to the middle in 2008, hardly what could be considered "good times". The only difference was that the "middle" in 2008 was a bit more to the "left" than it was in 2004 or 2000.

Yah, like I said - you don't know what you're talking about. Psephologist (the people who spend their time studying voting and election systems) have known for years that in bad times, people race to extremes (proportional to the situational).

[grassroots1]

Well, the most direct would be the Soviet imperialism with regards to the Communist rebels in both North Korea and Afghanistan, certainly analogous to our funding of the opposite sides of those respective wars.

My point is that forceful interventionion in other nations' affairs can be done by both "left wing" and "right wing" governments, at least as we define the terms commonly in American nomenclature. As it stands we have majorly interventionist wars started by both the left wing (Bosnia, Serbia) and right wing (Iraq, Iraq again) in the last 25 years. If we were to define one side as specifically isolationist or non-interventionist, then that's different.

I agree with you but the only difference is that I don't know if I would consider the USSR at the time of their invasion of Afghanistan to be a left-wing government. In fact I wouldn't. But according to the terms as they stand in American nomenclature, you are right.

[Todd D.]

Yah, like I said - you don't know what you're talking about. Psephologist (the people who spend their time studying voting and election systems) have known for years that in bad times, people race to extremes (proportional to the situational).

Ah, the old "I'll repeat my claim again without any proof" technique. A Wolfman specialty. Bravo. Again, how do you explain that both McCain and Obama "raced to the middle" in 2008 following taking more hardline positions during their respective primaries?

Further, how does any of this justify your idiotic notion that "American liberal = DNC = Social Conservative"?

[Wolfman]

Ah, the old "I'll repeat my claim again without any proof" technique. A Wolfman specialty.

Better then yours of 'I am right, and you're a fucking idiotic'.

Again, how do you explain that both McCain and Obama "raced to the middle" in 2008 following taking more hardline positions during their respective primaries?

You must have been sleeping during the election.

[youtube]oHXYsw_ZDXg[/youtube]
(Search words: McCain Add)

[youtube]2iPnvACXXV0[/youtube]
(Search words: Bush campaign add 2004)

So, you have Bush crying crocodile tears over Iraq/Afghanistan, and McCain insulting Obama. Notice a difference?

[youtube]aR3Gpsn4v4[/youtube]
(Search words: Obama campaign ads)

[youtube]J6wpG2Xesbk[/youtube]

Again, you have 'I'm qualified' compared to Obama proposing radical government change.

And again, Psephologists have known for quite a while that FPTP creates cycles of Centrism/Radicalism. Is Democracy Fair? is simple enough that you should be able to figure it out.

Further, how does any of this justify your idiotic notion that "American liberal = DNC = Social Conservative"?

The idiotic notion is yours. Also, you brought up the idea of the 'race to the middle'. Destroying that idea makes my job easier.

[Doug64]

Wow, did this take off while I was working. No way to respond to everything, but:

That's an even more idiotically simple system which will never work in reality.

So, a system with two axis and five options is more simplistic than one along a line with only three, right.

The DNC isn't 'Liberal' or 'Left wing' (if those terms are going to be used).

First, you can't talk about the Democrats and Republicans as only two parties - they're actually 100 parties, united into two coalitions. The old joke is that a Utah Democrat is a Republican anywhere else.

Second, while the Democratic Party has plenty of Statists (otherwise known as Blue Collar Democrats), and Centrists and maybe even some Conservatives (their elected representatives in the House labeled Blue Dog Democrats), the Democratic leadership in Washington is Liberal - and the party is going to pay for that fact in the voting booths come November.

And these quizzes are basically unable to tell the difference between a far Leftist and a Socialist.

True enough, and generally don't pretend otherwise. For instance, I'm probably best described as a moderate libertarian and have my own idiosyncrasies, and none of that is going to be reflected in this quiz. So what? That isn't what the quiz is trying to do.

My point is that forceful interventionion in other nations' affairs can be done by both "left wing" and "right wing" governments, at least as we define the terms commonly in American nomenclature. As it stands we have majorly interventionist wars started by both the left wing (Bosnia, Serbia) and right wing (Iraq, Iraq again) in the last 25 years. If we were to define one side as specifically isolationist or non-interventionist, then that's different.

That's because neither side is going to undercut the American Empire, whatever their rhetoric.

[Wolfman]

So, a system with two axis and five options is more simplistic than one along a line with only three, right.

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

First, you can't talk about the Democrats and Republicans as only two parties - they're actually 100 parties, united into two coalitions. The old joke is that a Utah Democrat is a Republican anywhere else.

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

[Todd D.]

I can't see Youtube from my ISP at this time, but it looks as though you are comparing McCain's campaign ads (or, as you so eloquently put them, "adds") to Obama's in tone and message. Do you even know what the "race to the middle" is? It's where both candidates try their hardest to appeal to the middle-voters, the centrists that are on the fence, so they moderate the previously hardline messages that they made during the primaries (when they had to appeal to the dye-in-the-wool hardcores of their party in order to get nominated). WHAT that "middle" / "moderate" is? That changes, but this moderation happens in Every. Single. Election. Good times or bad. Period.

So you had McCain going from "We will stay in Iraq for 100 years" in early 2008 to "I’ll bring the troops home with victory and with honor" and . Certainly moderated message there. Obama went from "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program. I see no reason why the US cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody." to "If you’ve got health care already, and probably the majority of you do, then you can keep your plan if you are satisfied with it." Why? Because that was far more easy for the centrists to swallow, even in "bad times".

Further, how does any of this justify your idiotic notion that "American liberal = DNC = Social Conservative"?

The idiotic notion is yours.

Uh, no. Here's YOUR quote:

American Liberal = DNC; DNC = Social Conservative; therefor, American Liberal = Social Conservative.

I'm still waiting for the justification for this one.

[Wolfman]

I can't see Youtube from my ISP at this time, but it looks as though you are comparing McCain's campaign ads (or, as you so eloquently put them, "adds") to Obama's in tone and message. Do you even know what the "race to the middle" is? It's where both candidates try their hardest to appeal to the middle-voters, the centrists that are on the fence, so they moderate the previously hardline messages that they made during the primaries (when they had to appeal to the dye-in-the-wool hardcores of their party in order to get nominated). This happens in Every. Single. Election. Good times or bad. Period.

Actually, I'm not. I'm comparing Obama's 2008 campaign ads to Kerry's 2004 ads, and McCain's to Bush's in tone and message. 2004 was a good time with ads that reflected that, and 2008 was not a good time, with ads that reflect that.

Uh, no. Here's YOUR quote

No, the idiotic position is that both parties are Centrists, which is yours. I'll respond no further until you watch the videos I've posted.

I'm still waiting for the justification for this one.

Patience is a virtue.

[Todd D.]

Actually, I'm not. I'm comparing Obama's 2008 campaign ads to Kerry's 2004 ads, and McCain's to Bush's in tone and message. 2004 was a good time with ads that reflected that, and 2008 was not a good time, with ads that reflect that.

So you're saying that both Kerry and Bush had "positive" tones, whereas Obama and McCain had rather negative tones? 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. It appears that you don't even understand the concept you are trying to argue against.

No, the idiotic position is that both parties are Centrists, which is yours.

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