I'm not very politically aware, but I don't know of any other social media active millenials in positions of power, this is a nice turn for the future. They call her a centrist, but she seems left...
I'm not very politically aware, but I don't know of any other social media active millenials in positions of power, this is a nice turn for the future. They call her a centrist, but she seems left standing to me. That's just my view as an American, so I could and most likely am incorrect on that. Maybe I need to look at more than just American politics in the future.
No, the Democrats would be pretty lefty in much of Europe too. Just the stance on immigration alone would be far off the scale of most / all of the progressive countries in Europe right now, and...
No, the Democrats would be pretty lefty in much of Europe too. Just the stance on immigration alone would be far off the scale of most / all of the progressive countries in Europe right now, and that's not including the more conservative ones (Hungary, Latvia, Russia, Serbia, etc.). Add in LGBT rights and tolerance towards marijuana for good measure. They're really not the same imho.
The Democratic party is pretty left/progressive on social issues, it's the economic axis that people are talking about when they describe it as a center-right or right wing party. While Democratic...
The Democratic party is pretty left/progressive on social issues, it's the economic axis that people are talking about when they describe it as a center-right or right wing party. While Democratic stances on LGBT rights, immigration, etc. would be firmly on the left by pretty much anyone's standards, their economic policies tend to be in line with centrist and conservative parties in the rest of the world.
There should be a political-translation-addon for Americans to read foreign news. Outside the US: "liberal" does not mean "left" or "progressist", but "economically liberal", which is much closer...
There should be a political-translation-addon for Americans to read foreign news. Outside the US:
"liberal" does not mean "left" or "progressist", but "economically liberal", which is much closer to segments of the American right and left
"centrist" doesn't mean "I'm a right-wing pretending to be reasonable", or "I support false balances". It's a truly moderate political persuasion.
"right-wing" does not necessarily mean anti-government or anti gun-control.
In sum: America uses political vocabulary in a very particular way, and this helps skew their views on world politics.
Yeah, this is a serious problem and even here on Tildes it rears its head, see this argument I had with @vivaria and @NaraVara. I'm actually kinda pissed off that americans hijacked perfectly...
"centrist" doesn't mean "I'm a right-wing pretending to be reasonable", or "I support false balances". It's a truly moderate political persuasion.
Yeah, this is a serious problem and even here on Tildes it rears its head, see this argument I had with @vivaria and @NaraVara.
I'm actually kinda pissed off that americans hijacked perfectly reasonable political words to express their completely off-balance world views and then turn around and think right-wing = nazi in every country or things like that. And then throw a hissy fit when people use the word "socialist", as if it's a bad one.
But… it'd probably shock quite a bit of the US mainstream to hear that their only two parties are actually "Economic Right-wing [Classic Democrats]" and "Nationalist extreme-right [GOP]", with some socialist left [AOC, Bernie], euro-centrists [Warren] and anarchists [Gabbard] sprinkled within the dems.
Well, right-wings are not all Nazis the same way left-wings are not all Stalinists. But it is true that all Nazis are right-wings, and all Stalinists are left-wings.
Well, right-wings are not all Nazis the same way left-wings are not all Stalinists. But it is true that all Nazis are right-wings, and all Stalinists are left-wings.
The more difficult thing is that lots of relevant political positions don't really fit on that axis because they weren't germane to the context of the French Revolution. Our axes are largely based...
The more difficult thing is that lots of relevant political positions don't really fit on that axis because they weren't germane to the context of the French Revolution. Our axes are largely based on level of deference to authority/tradition and level of tolerance for inequality. But you can have Left or Right flavors of environmentalism, authoritarianism, scientific progress, healthcare, etc. And how those shake out in various countries depends on the political/class affiliations of the people holding those views.
I think possibly the most toxic part of the american political system is how, when an issue becomes politicized, it immediately also becomes part of the opposing platform. Environmentalism (in the...
I think possibly the most toxic part of the american political system is how, when an issue becomes politicized, it immediately also becomes part of the opposing platform.
Environmentalism (in the non-economical sense), gender inequality, free speech… none of these are inherently right-wing or left-wing.
It might seem that way on the surface but it's really not. The issues become politicized specifically because there is disagreement on the issue. For example, environmentalism is "right-wing" in...
when an issue becomes politicized, it immediately also becomes part of the opposing platform.
It might seem that way on the surface but it's really not. The issues become politicized specifically because there is disagreement on the issue. For example, environmentalism is "right-wing" in America because many environmental concerns affect the bottom-lines of extractive industries. Extractive industries (like oil, mining, gas, etc.) also tend to have very particularistic libertarian and propertarian outlooks because the way they work depends on having unrestricted access to land and no accountability for the externalities of how that land is used. It's just natural to how those industries work.
Every incentive is structured around reinforcing those values, so when environmentalists come along and start arguing that there should be considerations for externalities and that property rights aren't absolute, they will bristle. And that propertarian streak extends to fellow travelers who also value the sanctity of property rights, namely folks who want to use it to shelter themselves from having to do anything about social or economic inequality. They become natural bedfellows.
The real toxicity is that the interests with money on their sides get to set the agenda and determine what facts to admit to the debate. So extreme minority viewpoints get to punch way above their weight.
How to tackle climate change is a world-wide political issue, but the US is one of the only countries where the very existence of climate change is of political contention.
How to tackle climate change is a world-wide political issue, but the US is one of the only countries where the very existence of climate change is of political contention.
Like I said: The real toxicity is that the interests with money on their sides get to set the agenda and determine what facts to admit to the debate. So extreme minority viewpoints get to punch...
Like I said: The real toxicity is that the interests with money on their sides get to set the agenda and determine what facts to admit to the debate. So extreme minority viewpoints get to punch way above their weight.
There should be some standardization of political language and serious definitions to them. 'Right' and 'left' in politics came from where people with different opinions sat on the French...
There should be a political-translation-addon for Americans to read foreign news.
There should be some standardization of political language and serious definitions to them. 'Right' and 'left' in politics came from where people with different opinions sat on the French Revolution. Now 'right' vaguely means 'culturally hierarchical and economically pro-business and anti government safety nets' and 'left' vaguely means 'economically pro governmental safety nets and culturally egalitarian', which doesn't account for libertarians, neoliberals, Silicon Valley libertarians who are incredibly left-wing usually but will gladly partner with conservatives if it makes them a buck faster (see Google helping oil for profit or Facebook putting breitbart in high-quality news) or actual nationalist-socialists.
We should probably attempt to formalize the variation in political thought we have into tangible, general spectrums. My personal picks for such a model are for now either 8values or the Vosem cube/chart.
I'm not very politically aware, but I don't know of any other social media active millenials in positions of power, this is a nice turn for the future. They call her a centrist, but she seems left standing to me. That's just my view as an American, so I could and most likely am incorrect on that. Maybe I need to look at more than just American politics in the future.
Yep! The only place where the US Democrats are considered "lefties" is the US.
No, the Democrats would be pretty lefty in much of Europe too. Just the stance on immigration alone would be far off the scale of most / all of the progressive countries in Europe right now, and that's not including the more conservative ones (Hungary, Latvia, Russia, Serbia, etc.). Add in LGBT rights and tolerance towards marijuana for good measure. They're really not the same imho.
The Democratic party is pretty left/progressive on social issues, it's the economic axis that people are talking about when they describe it as a center-right or right wing party. While Democratic stances on LGBT rights, immigration, etc. would be firmly on the left by pretty much anyone's standards, their economic policies tend to be in line with centrist and conservative parties in the rest of the world.
There should be a political-translation-addon for Americans to read foreign news. Outside the US:
In sum: America uses political vocabulary in a very particular way, and this helps skew their views on world politics.
But the article clearly says "socially liberal".
Good for them. I was not referring to the article, though. This is a broader issue that I found was interesting as a tangent.
Yeah, this is a serious problem and even here on Tildes it rears its head, see this argument I had with @vivaria and @NaraVara.
I'm actually kinda pissed off that americans hijacked perfectly reasonable political words to express their completely off-balance world views and then turn around and think right-wing = nazi in every country or things like that. And then throw a hissy fit when people use the word "socialist", as if it's a bad one.
But… it'd probably shock quite a bit of the US mainstream to hear that their only two parties are actually "Economic Right-wing [Classic Democrats]" and "Nationalist extreme-right [GOP]", with some socialist left [AOC, Bernie], euro-centrists [Warren] and anarchists [Gabbard] sprinkled within the dems.
Well, right-wings are not all Nazis the same way left-wings are not all Stalinists. But it is true that all Nazis are right-wings, and all Stalinists are left-wings.
The more difficult thing is that lots of relevant political positions don't really fit on that axis because they weren't germane to the context of the French Revolution. Our axes are largely based on level of deference to authority/tradition and level of tolerance for inequality. But you can have Left or Right flavors of environmentalism, authoritarianism, scientific progress, healthcare, etc. And how those shake out in various countries depends on the political/class affiliations of the people holding those views.
I think possibly the most toxic part of the american political system is how, when an issue becomes politicized, it immediately also becomes part of the opposing platform.
Environmentalism (in the non-economical sense), gender inequality, free speech… none of these are inherently right-wing or left-wing.
It might seem that way on the surface but it's really not. The issues become politicized specifically because there is disagreement on the issue. For example, environmentalism is "right-wing" in America because many environmental concerns affect the bottom-lines of extractive industries. Extractive industries (like oil, mining, gas, etc.) also tend to have very particularistic libertarian and propertarian outlooks because the way they work depends on having unrestricted access to land and no accountability for the externalities of how that land is used. It's just natural to how those industries work.
Every incentive is structured around reinforcing those values, so when environmentalists come along and start arguing that there should be considerations for externalities and that property rights aren't absolute, they will bristle. And that propertarian streak extends to fellow travelers who also value the sanctity of property rights, namely folks who want to use it to shelter themselves from having to do anything about social or economic inequality. They become natural bedfellows.
The real toxicity is that the interests with money on their sides get to set the agenda and determine what facts to admit to the debate. So extreme minority viewpoints get to punch way above their weight.
How to tackle climate change is a world-wide political issue, but the US is one of the only countries where the very existence of climate change is of political contention.
Like I said: The real toxicity is that the interests with money on their sides get to set the agenda and determine what facts to admit to the debate. So extreme minority viewpoints get to punch way above their weight.
sola dosis facit venenum
I'm also a descriptivist, but please keep in mind the word "centrist" is used throughout the world very differently than in the US.
Sure it can. That is what I said. That is precisely the reason of the confusion.
There should be some standardization of political language and serious definitions to them. 'Right' and 'left' in politics came from where people with different opinions sat on the French Revolution. Now 'right' vaguely means 'culturally hierarchical and economically pro-business and anti government safety nets' and 'left' vaguely means 'economically pro governmental safety nets and culturally egalitarian', which doesn't account for libertarians, neoliberals, Silicon Valley libertarians who are incredibly left-wing usually but will gladly partner with conservatives if it makes them a buck faster (see Google helping oil for profit or Facebook putting breitbart in high-quality news) or actual nationalist-socialists.
We should probably attempt to formalize the variation in political thought we have into tangible, general spectrums. My personal picks for such a model are for now either 8values or the Vosem cube/chart.
Yes, we should. But good luck making America follow international standards.