US elections

I can see that, but that dosn't make them right-winged either.

The only reason i make this point is, that when I talk to people and say: "I'm right-winged, the normal answer is: "Are you nazi or something!?". And i'm not a nazi, i'm a liberalistic man.

Extrem right-wing is actually more anarchism. But also extrem left-winged people wants anarchism (but people sharing, of course).
 
Nazism is extremely right-winged. I agree that it should not be held representative for everything that is right-winged, but the nationalism and xenophobia alone place them in this wing.
 
Re Republicans versus Democrats and the elections:

Yesterday, Milton Friedman, one of the most influential American economists of our time, passed away at the ripe old age of 94.  He was the chief economics advisor to Reagan, Nixon and candidate Goldwater, and is widely regarded as the leader of the influential "Chicago school" of economics based on his work at the University of Chicago (coincidentally, where I went to law school and got to know Dick Cheney's daughter -- the straight one -- and Barack Obama -- something tells me mainstream America isn't ready for his politics, his race aside).  I was fortunate enough to be part of a small group luncheon with Dr. Friedman when I was in college in 1990 or 1991 -- yes, I'm old.  He had an insightful comment when asked about his well-known ties to the Republican party.  He said something like the following, and yes I am paraphrasing, notwithstanding the quotation marks: "I am often confused for a Republican.  I am, in fact, a libertarian, but I vote Republican because a vote for the Libertarian party is wasted, and oftentimes the Libertarian candidates are kooks.  [He did use that word.]  Republicans tend to be less liberal on social issues, but more liberal on economic issues.  Democrats tend to be more liberal socially, but more restrictive economically.  I view the economic side of it as more important, and given that that is my area of expertise, I can have more influence if I align myself with Republicans.  But it really is a closer call than you might think."  His words rang true with me, and as I am a white, straight, relatively affluent male, I tended to favor economic liberalism over social liberalism, faced with that unfortunate choice (really, why can't we have both??).  So, I have historically voted Republican.  In the intervening 25 years, however, I have seen the Republican party drift away from its roots, and the party now seems to be more about keeping gay people from getting married and keeping Dick Cheney in employment than fostering economic growth.  [EDIT: There is not a chance in hell she is reading this post, but I feel guilty not adding that that Dick Cheney's daughter is a nice person.  I should also add that, notwithstanding my comment, the U.S. stock market DOES happen to be at an all-time high, and in contrast to the internet bubble in the late 1990s, this seems to be a REAL high, not merely an illusory one.]  So, for the first time, notwithstanding that I am a registered Republican, I mostly voted for Democrats.  The exceptions: I didn't vote for Senator Feinstein (California), as she's a disaster, and I did (ahem) vote for Schwarzenegger.  <Shrug>  He was the lesser of two evils, and actually more in line with the Milton Friedman view of what the Republican party should be than the Bush/Cheney view.   

All that said, I generally detest politics, and I have little patience for shrill polemics from either side "of the aisle" -- Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken are equally jackasses. 
 
XoRRoX said:
Extrem right-wing is actually more anarchism.
Click to expand...
Traditional extreme-right thinking is about as far away from anarchism as possible. These thinkers and their followers favoured monarchy and/or military regimes, strict and conservative ruling systems.

There is also a movement called National Anarchism. Those people believe in decentralisation of political and economical structures and hate such organisations as NATO and the UN. There are some pretty nice articles on wikipedia, if you're interested.
 
Serratia said:
Traditional extreme-right thinking is about as far away from anarchism as possible. These thinkers and their followers favoured monarchy and/or military regimes, strict and conservative ruling systems.
Click to expand...

But modern right-winged thinking is about freedom from the state (but i agree on your point, though).

Perun says: "but the nationalism and xenophobia alone place them in this wing."

But nazism stands for many other things, which is forgot. How the state is build out and so on. And therefore i can't, if you want my opinion, put them in as right-winged.
 
Perun says: "but the nationalism and xenophobia alone place them in this wing."

But nazism stands for many other things, which is forgot. How the state is build out and so on. And therefore i can't, if you want my opinion, put them in as right-winged.
Click to expand...

Like?

I know that many parts of the nazi ideology in fact compare with socialist ideas, but the fact of the matter is that this is always with the background of extreme nationalism and xenophobia. Work for all means work for all Germans and nobody else. Social security means social security for Germans and nobody else. And so on. Modern-day parties on the extreme right wing of Germany's political spectrum say nothing else, yet everybody places them on the extreme right wing.
 
XoRRoX said:
But modern right-winged thinking is about freedom from the state (but i agree on your point, though).
Click to expand...

You're confusing the "Right" with the Libertarians. In the United States, it is true, that many people in the Republican party happen to be both on the political right AND libertarian, but that doesn't make them the same thing. Left-winged thinking can be libertarian too.

In fact, you'll find that most of the right wingers subscribing to libertarian belief only do so when convienent. For instance, a person really in favour of, as you put it, "freedom from the state" would be in favour of gay marriage and abortion rights. Why? beause legislating against such things is an invasion of personal lives by the government.

Modern right wing thinking, then, is atually about invading personal lives just as much as modern left-wing thinking. They have a much different agenda, therefore they do so in a different way.
 
The following post is proudly from a libertarian bias.

The left-right issue is an incomplete view of political affiliations according to libertarian thinking.

The libertarian view of the 'political spectrum' is shaped like a diamond, not a linear line, and looks roughly like this:

AT TOP: Libertarianism
AT LEFT: Liberalism
AT CENTRE: Centrism
AT RIGHT: Conservatism
AT BOTTOM: Big Gov't or Statism

If anyone cares to see this spectrum go here: http://www.lp.org/.  Then:
1) Choose the FLQ under 'About Us' on the left-hand side.
2) Choose the "Read more about the Libertarian Party in our Introduction" link under "Additional Info" on the left-hand side.
3) Choose the "Are you a Libertarian?" link under "Additional Info" on the left-hand side.

There is a neat test for people of all political affiliations.  This test has some key issues in American politics using a Likert Scale.

This is not an attempt to convert anyone to libertarianism.  I merely wish to show another way of thinking, as opposed to the faulty, contradictory, simplistic and traditional LEFT-CENTRE-RIGHT spectrum. 

Why cannot people practise liberty in both the private and public domains, as Cornfedhick said?  I could go on a tangent on why every society on earth practices some sort of self-destroying dichotomy such as private vs public freedoms. 

As Duke said, Bush politics are closer to "Statism" than "old-style Republicanism" or Conservatism.
 
Genghis Khan said:
If anyone cares to see this spectrum go here: http://www.lp.org/.  Then:
1) Choose the FLQ under 'About Us' on the left-hand side.
2) Choose the "Read more about the Libertarian Party in our Introduction" link under "Additional Info" on the left-hand side.
3) Choose the "Are you a Libertarian?" link under "Additional Info" on the left-hand side.
Click to expand...

Or, just click here.

Really, GK: is it that hard to create a direct link? :p

My score on that quiz is 70% on personal freedom and 30% on economic freedom, placing me in the "liberal" area but close to "centrist" (equidistant between "libertarian" and "statist").

I first took that quiz 10 years ago, at which time I was 100% personal and 50% economic, meaning I was on the border between "libertarian" and "liberal" and far from the center. Five years ago, I had moved to 90% / 30% - solid "liberal", but still far from center.

I think that my movement over the years is due mainly to a different interpretation of the questions. While my views have certainly changed some, I think I tend to answer more of their questions with a "maybe" now. In other words, I still hold the same views, but I understand and appreciate the strengths of opposing arguments.

For example, consider the issue of drug legalization. I used to support legalization unconditionally. However, I now feel that there are some drugs which are so harmful that it may be acceptable[sup]1[/sup] to prevent people from using them. Crystal meth is the most obvious such drug, but heroin and crack are also terrible. I have never met or heard of anyone who started using any of those drugs, and was able to get away unharmed. (And remember, I'm a recovered addict myself, which means I've met more addicts than most non-addicts ever will.)

So if the only two choices for the drug question were "yes" and "no", then I would choose "yes" ... but I can see where "no" could be acceptable for some drugs, so I'm now a "maybe".


[sup]1[/sup]I chose that word carefully. Continued criminalization of drugs would not be "right", "correct", or "perfect", but criminalization of the worst drugs is "acceptable". There are other things that need fixing more.
 
Thanks SMX.  :)

Another thing to consider is the amount of questions in the questionnaire, which could potentially be infinite.  For example, a question like: "Governments should have no right to dismantle or break up large corporations considered to be monopolies" could be asked which would have a more divisive vote, in my experience, than the question on welfare. 

The way a question is phrased could also influence a vote.  For example:

1. Unemployed people deserve welfare.
2. Unemployed people deserve temporary social assistance.
3. Unemployed people actively seeking a job deserve a temporary welfare.
4. Unemployed people actively seeking a job deserve a temporary welfare on compassionate grounds.

It is pretty easy to see that depending on the phrasing, a differing image of the unemployed is made.  As SMX said, this sort of evaluation is an all-or-nothing sum which does not distinguish between #1 and #4 in the above example.  I can see myself voting for #3 or #4, but I'd never vote for #1 or #2.

In summary, I like this sort of measurement on principal but I think it could really use an upgrade.  There could be a spectrum like this with many questions for every political platform issue. 

EDIT: When I consider possibilities of what could go wrong due to influences outside of politics[sup]1[/sup], I'm exactly half-way between liberal and libertarian ideologies, which means I give full freedom to personal issues but reserve some freedom in economic issues.  When in idealist mode, I vote exclusively libertarian.  Another thing is that some or many may consider naive is that libertarianism does depend on voluntary charity exclusively for a lot of social programs to work.

[sup]1[/sup] For example, media could influence youth to be more active in risk-taking behaviour such as drug experimentation.
 
The thing I don't like is over here, the US elections are on the news. Now that's fine but what I want to know, Is the General Election in the uk broadcasted in the US?
I hate it that news companies, ITV news, for example always assume that the US elections take presidence over everything else. We hardly ever broadcast the Mexican elections or the Australian Elections.
 
Shaun056 said:
The thing I don't like is over here, the US elections are on the news. Now that's fine but what I want to know, Is the General Election in the uk broadcasted in the US?
I hate it that news companies, ITV news, for example always assume that the US elections take presidence over everything else. We hardly ever broadcast the Mexican elections or the Australian Elections.
Click to expand...

Because what happens in the United States is of so much more consequence to the UK's economy, society, and whatnot than what happens in Mexico or Australia.
Face it, man, America matters to everyone in the world. Much more so than any other country, really. To quote former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau - "Living next to America is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."

And as for Canada, UK elections are covered extensively here. As are those in all of our major trading partners.
 
The American news media, both print and television, report the general results of UK elections.  However, there is not extensive televised coverage of election returns as they come in, as we would have in US elections.  And, it really is limited to which party fared best in Parliament, without any references to particular elected officials other than the Prime Minister. 

The extensive televised coverage of elections is an interesting phenomenon in the U.S., because the polls close first on the East Coast, then on the West Coast three hours later.  The coastal states tend to vote Democratic, and the central states tend to vote Republican (though there are exceptions).  So, a U.S. election often takes the form of a sporting match, in which the Democrats take a lead when the results from the Eastern time zone precincts are reported, and the Republicans typically mount a comeback when the results from the Central and Mountain time zones are released, followed by a late rally by the Democrats when the Pacific time zone results are available.  However, the last two presidential elections have turned on states in the Eastern time zone that were too close to call right away.  The Florida "hanging chad" ballots in the 2000 Bush-Gore elections were well publicized, but in 2004, when Bush defeated Kerry, the election ultimately turned on a very close vote in Ohio -- which is in the Eastern time zone -- and specifically on the results of a few rural counties where there was high Republican voter turnout to oppose a local proposal that would have allowed gay marriages.
 
I'm a centrist leaning towards libertarian, with a score of 70% on personal issues and 60% on economic issues.  For such a short quiz it's amazingly accurate. I really do feel that it depends on the issue at hand whether the government should intervene or not, and I do pride myself on open-mindedness and not leaning towards extremes. Thanks for the link, Genghis Khan!
 
Onhell said:
Who?
Click to expand...

Laugh it up, fuzzball.

trash.jpg


:p
 
I'm sorry if this has been answered earlier, but I was wondering what the outcome of the elections were. By this I mean the total outcome and not just the senate or whatever else was being voted on. I'd also like to know what the outcome means for the U.S. exactly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top