Are America’s liberal cities really liberal? (crime, loans)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because America has a giant two-party system that has to account for various constituencies that would be their own separate parties in other countries.
Could the Democrats be viewed as the amalgamation of two separate parties- like the Canadian Liberals (focused on supporting business, culturally progressive/multicultural, supporting basic social programs, but reluctant to additional public intervention in the economy), and the NDP, focused on social-democratic, pro-labor reforms, an anti-imperial agenda, and progressive activism?
Someone like Obama would be a Liberal while someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be in the NDP- two entirely separate parties, if they were in Canada, but are in the same party in the States. How does this murky gradation between social/left-liberalism and social democracy/democratic socialism impact the Democratic Party and the American political structure, while this distinction is quite clear in Canada?
Could the Democrats be viewed as the amalgamation of two separate parties- like the Canadian Liberals (focused on supporting business, culturally progressive/multicultural, supporting basic social programs, but reluctant to additional public intervention in the economy), and the NDP, focused on social-democratic, pro-labor reforms, an anti-imperial agenda, and progressive activism?
Someone like Obama would be a Liberal while someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be in the NDP- two entirely separate parties, if they were in Canada, but are in the same party in the States. How does this murky gradation between social/left-liberalism and social democracy/democratic socialism impact the Democratic Party and the American political structure, while this distinction is quite clear in Canada?
Both parties can actually. Someone like the late John McCain is quite distinct from the likes of Mitch McConnell.
Both parties can actually. Someone like the late John McCain is quite distinct from the likes of Mitch McConnell.
I think both John McCain and Mitch McConnell would both "map" to the Canadian Conservatives, though, with McConnell on the right flank. However, in Europe, McCain could be a Tory (I think he may be too conservative, but perhaps as a Right-wing Christian Democrat), and McConnell could be in a hard-conservative (although not quite a populist/nationalist party like AfD- McConnell is more establishmentarian than that, in my opinion)...
In Europe, the main ideological divide is Liberal-Conservative/Capitalist vs Socialist, while in the US, it is between left-liberalism (implicitly social-democratic in some sense, but not overtly leftist) and right-conservatism (which is liberal in the European sense, as the US lacked a feudal class)...
I think there's a better chance that other countries think we're crazy for not having universal healthcare and public universities as the lack of those are rare phenomenons in the developed world.
In an ideal world, the United States should have some form of universal healthcare and free public higher education. However, these things are not possible given the current demographics of the country.
There are too many low IQ individuals and under-achievers as a percentage of the population to make social programs like that feasible. Other rich countries don’t have to contend with these issues, certainly not to the same extent as the United States.
In an ideal world, the United States should have some form of universal healthcare and free public higher education. However, these things are not possible given the current demographics of the country.
[pThere are too many low IQ individuals and under-achievers as a percentage of the population to make social programs like that feasible. Other rich countries don’t have to contend with these issues, certainly not to the same extent as the United States.
Maybe they were never given the right opportunity to develop, which can be solved by improving public schools.
You may not be satisfied with this answer, but I find it's quite difficult to make comparisons between different countries and their political parties.
Certainly there are a good number of commonalities between the U.S. Democrats and the Canadian Liberals. And Bernie Sanders-style Democrats have some common ground with the NDP - but they by and large don't control their party.
While the Liberals in Canada are kind of middle ground in terms of economic policy, I find the Democrats are much more "free enterprise" oriented, something which is think is simply part and parcel of being a mainstream American party. Free enterprise is a very powerful dogma in your country.
The Democrats can also be much more interventionist than the Canadian Liberals in terms of foreign policy especially when it comes to military matters. In Canada, no political party is really like this. Again, this is just a function of the countries in which these parties operate.
One thing I will say is that I disagree quite strongly when some say that a Conservative Prime Minister like Stephen Harper is actually to the left of a Democratic President like Barack Obama.
I think that overall that's demonstrably false, and based on a rather simplistic analysis of complex issues.
In an ideal world, the United States should have some form of universal healthcare and free public higher education. However, these things are not possible given the current demographics of the country.
There are too many low IQ individuals and under-achievers as a percentage of the population to make social programs like that feasible. Other rich countries don’t have to contend with these issues, certainly not to the same extent as the United States.
Those rich countries you cite didn't start out with their entire population being high IQ and high achievers. And those social programs we're talking about (especially in the areas of education, health and training) are actually a big part of the reason they may arguably have fewer "low IQ" and under-achieving people today.
You may not be satisfied with this answer, but I find it's quite difficult to make comparisons between different countries and their political parties.
Certainly there are a good number of commonalities between the U.S. Democrats and the Canadian Liberals. And Bernie Sanders-style Democrats have some common ground with the NDP - but they by and large don't control their party.
While the Liberals in Canada are kind of middle ground in terms of economic policy, I find the Democrats are much more "free enterprise" oriented, something which is think is simply part and parcel of being a mainstream American party. Free enterprise is a very powerful dogma in your country.
The Democrats can also be much more interventionist than the Canadian Liberals in terms of foreign policy especially when it comes to military matters. In Canada, no political party is really like this. Again, this is just a function of the countries in which these parties operate.
One thing I will say is that I disagree quite strongly when some say that a Conservative Prime Minister like Stephen Harper is actually to the left of a Democratic President like Barack Obama.
I think that overall that's demonstrably false, and based on a rather simplistic analysis of complex issues.
Right on Harper not being more left-leaning than Obama. My guess is that while most Canadian Conservatives, Tories, and Christian Democrats (although the latter is to a lesser extent, as Catholicism still promotes some social welfare) may in fact be more supportive of right-leaning positions than the Democratic Party, Harper is forced to accept that most Canadians would view the removal of their public healthcare system as an extreme-right-wing position, even when his own views clearly correspond to the Republicans in the US, and the Democrats operate with the implicit assumptions that most Americans support free-market policies...
And I agree on the US being more free-market oriented compared to Canada and to Western Europe ( more so in the latter case, as Canada, while being somewhat more left-leaning than the US, has never elected the social-democratic NDP into power compared to the British Labour party, the Parti Socialiste, the SPD, which have enjoyed long reigns in power...) but what is the significance that somewhere like Massachusetts or California probably wouldn't elect someone like Doug Ford (obviously, most Ontarians voted for the Liberals or the NDP, so most did not support Ford) into power? BC has been controlled mostly by the Liberals (which I understand to be right-leaning and focused on free enterprise), while Washington and Oregon have been more controlled by left-wing Democrats that have supported 15$ minimum wage..
I suspect that the main reason why the Democrats are more interventionist than the Canadian Liberals is that the US is simply a more aggressive and assertive country (not that I necessarily agree with that) due to its political and economic power... There is definitely more of a concern for human rights in Canadian foreign policy, though, as Trudeau has moved against Saudi Arabia due to its human rights violations to a much greater extent than the US has...
But are certain areas of the US in fact more left-leaning than certain areas of Canada? For instance, the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnes...%93Labor_Party )the Farmer-Labor Party portion- was borne out of many of the same factors that led the NDP to develop in the Prairie Provinces and in the northern, mining areas of Ontario... so there are still linkages between American and Canadian social movements/political parties despite the differing party systems... Somewhere like MN may very well be receptive to policies like those of the Canadian NDP, due to a stronger social-democratic influence in its political culture compared to the rest of the US.
Although it would be difficult to imagine Texas or Alabama voting for a social-democratic party like the NDP (although this was again due to splits within the Canadian Conservatives that led the Wildrose Party to break off- most Albertans still supported center-right or right-wing candidates)!
The PQ - the original sovereignist part - are also social-democratic and even flirted with membership in the Socialist International at one point. They still are to the left but not as dramatically as they once were. At the beginning of their history they were fighting for the little guy as French Canadians were socio-economically second-class citizens. That's much less true today so they've had to adjust and have become a bit more centrist as a result.
An old joke is that "Le PQ signale à gauche mais vire à droite". Basically, the PQ likes to signal a left turn but still veers off to the right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
