"Democrats are right-wing, Republicans are extremely far-right"

[Nakura Chambers]

I hear this thrown around a lot, usually by liberals, but there doesn't seem to be any truth to it. This "political spectrum" of theirs is an entirely subjective and relative statement to begin with, as there is no fixed scale to go by. This is to say nothing of the fact that it is factually wrong when compared with other developed countries, or even the entire world (including undeveloped countries). For the sake of this discussion, I shall take a look at developed countries only.

Most countries in Europe have parties that are far more "extreme" than the Republican Party, and I'm not just talking about fringe groups. Look at centre parties like Civic Platform, the largest party in Poland, which opposes gay marriage and abortion and supports the drug war, chemical castration and Christian theocracy (prayer in school). This isn't an exception, this is the rule in Eastern Europe.

Western European countries also have their fair share of radicals, and these guys are much more radical than any office-holding Republican; take a look at the National Front in France, Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and the English Defence League in Britain. Most of these parties only have a handful of seats in parliament (though there are exceptions, like the Party for Freedom and Sweden Democrats, which have a large number of seats), but when you take the far-right parties and the centre-right parties (and likewise for the far-left and centre-left), and then add in everything in between, you'll see that Western Europe isn't all that different from America or Eastern Europe after all. And this is to say nothing for highly nationalistic developed countries in Asia, like Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan.

So how exactly are Democrats "right-wing," when they have almost the exact same rhetoric, policies and overall dream as their European counterparts? All you need to do is look at how buddy-buddy American liberals and European social democrats are on this forum. In many ways, US Democrats are far more extreme than their European counterparts; take for instance gun control. Most people in Europe, regardless of political ideology, would never support the extremist laws that many Democrats have proposed, and in a few cases, even implemented. Take for instance the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, or the several attempts to ban handguns at various levels of government in the US; yet both handguns and semi-automatic rifles are legal in virtually every single European country, except for the United Kingdom.

Could someone please explain to me how exactly "Democrats are right-wing," when the evidence simply doesn't support that claim?

[swineflu]

I hear this thrown around a lot, usually by liberals, but there doesn't seem to be any truth to it. This "political spectrum" of theirs is an entirely subjective and relative statement to begin with, as there is no fixed scale to go by. This is to say nothing of the fact that it is factually wrong when compared with other developed countries, or even the entire world (including undeveloped countries). For the sake of this discussion, I shall take a look at developed countries only.

Most countries in Europe have parties that are far more "extreme" than the Republican Party, and I'm not just talking about fringe groups. Look at centre parties like Civic Platform, the largest party in Poland, which opposes gay marriage and abortion and supports the drug war, chemical castration and Christian theocracy (prayer in school). This isn't an exception, this is the rule in Eastern Europe.

Western European countries also have their fair share of radicals, and these guys are much more radical than any office-holding Republican; take a look at the National Front in France, Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and the English Defence League in Britain. Most of these parties only have a handful of seats in parliament (though there are exceptions, like the Party for Freedom and Sweden Democrats, which have a large number of seats), but when you take the far-right parties and the centre-right parties (and likewise for the far-left and centre-left), and then add in everything in between, you'll see that Western Europe isn't all that different from America or Eastern Europe after all. And this is to say nothing for highly nationalistic developed countries in Asia, like Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan.

So how exactly are Democrats "right-wing," when they have almost the exact same rhetoric, policies and overall dream as their European counterparts? All you need to do is look at how buddy-buddy American liberals and European social democrats are on this forum. In many ways, US Democrats are far more extreme than their European counterparts; take for instance gun control. Most people in Europe, regardless of political ideology, would support the extremist laws that many Democrats have proposed and in a few cases, even implemented. Take for instance the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, or the several attempts to ban handguns at various levels of government in the US; yet both handguns and these so-called "assault weapons" are legal in virtually every single European country, except for the United Kingdom.

Could someone please explain to me how exactly "Democrats are right-wing," when the evidence simply doesn't support that claim?

The evidence simply supports that claim. Democrats are exactly right-wing.

Democrats have markedly different rhetoric, policies and overall dreams as their european counterparts. All you need to do is look at how combative American liberals and european social democrats are on this forum. In many ways US Democrats are less extreme than their European counterparts; take for instance gun control. Most people in europe, regardless of political ideology would not support the bland gun control laws proposed by many Democrats, and in a few cases, even implemented. Take for instance the Federal Assault Weapons ban, or the several attempts to ban handguns at various levels of government in the US; yet both handguns and these aptly-named "assault weapons" are not legal in any european country, including the united Kingdom.

[Endus]

As I said in the other thread that sparked this, your basic premise is fundamentally false. You claim the political spectrum to be entirely subjective and relative.

If this were true, then what you're really saying is that there's no actual ideology. That there's no actual difference between liberalism and conservativism, they're just differently-colored jerseys the teams wear so the viewers at home can tell who's on which side.

No, the terms are not subjective or relative. They are based on objective ideological concepts. What you seem to be talking about is the American perspective, which labels Democrats as "liberal" solely because they're more liberal than the Conservatives. And they are. That does not mean they actually are pursuing a liberal ideology, just a moderately conservative one to the Republican's far-right ideology.

[mvaliz]

I hear this thrown around a lot, usually by liberals, /snip

That's as far as I got until my BS meter went off.

Sorry son, from my perspective, it's another stereotype many of the Republicans seem to place on Liberals.

EDIT: this post reminds me of that Thunderaan one he made asserting that Liberals are somehow naive to the world and that Liberals believe that people fundamentally do good no matter what... and then quietly ignores how Liberals are the side who back pro-regulation and pro-gun control for the very reason of too much abuse of power in the wrong hands.

[Shadowmelded]

The EDL is in no way a major political party, it's a handful of racists and bigots. You've literally made a thread where you stated you wanted to start an American Chapter so please, let's not play the "I'm not extremely right wing, you guys just tip the scales" game.

[Nakura Chambers]

The EDL is in no way a major political party, it's a handful of racists and bigots. You've literally made a thread where you stated you wanted to start an American Chapter so please, let's not play the "I'm not extremely right wing, you guys just tip the scales" game.

They aren't a political party at all, they're a movement of concerned citizens (who happen to be racist).

[Shadowmelded]

They aren't a political party at all, they're a movement of concerned citizens (who happen to be racist).

With nowhere near the influence you're attributing to them. They're only well known for being loud and obnoxious, they don't make up a significant part of the electorate.

[Nakura Chambers]

As I said in the other thread that sparked this, your basic premise is fundamentally false. You claim the political spectrum to be entirely subjective and relative.

If this were true, then what you're really saying is that there's no actual ideology. That there's no actual difference between liberalism and conservativism, they're just differently-colored jerseys the teams wear so the viewers at home can tell who's on which side.

No, the terms are not subjective or relative. They are based on objective ideological concepts. What you seem to be talking about is the American perspective, which labels Democrats as "liberal" solely because they're more liberal than the Conservatives. And they are. That does not mean they actually are pursuing a liberal ideology, just a moderately conservative one to the Republican's far-right ideology.

I can say that you're conservative, but compared to who/what? Are you conservative compared to Karl Marx? Are you conservative compared to Charles de Gaulle? Are you conservative compared to me?

Where does this political spectrum of yours begin and end? Is it the same as my idea of where it begins and ends? Many, if not most, Republicans considered Mitt Romney to have been a liberal, yet most liberals painted him as an "evil conservative" who wanted to kill women and homosexuals. Odd that these two groups had two very different opinions of the same person, no?

[fengosa]

I don't know that if the entire democratic party is right but Obama himself is fairly moderate perhaps even leans slightly to the right. The biggest issue I have with the Republicans is that their policy aren't fiscally responsible. They're concerned with protecting the wealth and the privelage of those who have it and they put this ideal before the fiscal well being of the nation as a whole.

[Nakura Chambers]

With nowhere near the influence you're attributing to them. They're only well known for being loud and obnoxious, they don't make up a significant part of the electorate.

Perhaps not, but the Party for Freedom, True Finns, Swiss People's Party, National Front, Sweden Democrats, Flemish Interest, etc. certainly do.

[Gheld]

It is entirely relative, Endus. I can say that you're conservative, but compared to who/what? Are you conservative compared to Karl Marx? Are you conservative compared to Charles de Gaulle? Are you conservative compared to me?

Where does this political spectrum of yours begin and end? Is it the same as my idea of where it begins and ends? A large portion, if not most, Republicans considered Mitt Romney to have been a liberal, yet most liberals painted him as an "evil conservative" who wanted to kill women and homosexuals. Odd that these two groups had two very different opinions of the same person, no?

While the far right wanted Romney to be the guy the liberals painted him as, Romney gave the liberals what they wanted by still pandering to those voters.
EDIT: I mean seriously. I know plenty of conservative people who are great people, but anybody who doesn't look at the republican party in the US and see it on a sad self destructive spiral of wishy-washy right wing rhetoric and obsolete ways of thinking clinging on for one last little taste of power isn't one of them. (And they need to cut the crap, and become competitive again, because if they render themselves irrelevant, everybody loses, because if the dems can just lazily throw any candidate onto the ballot to run uncontested, then liberal or conservative alike, don't expect quality leadership.)

[Shadowmelded]

Perhaps not, but the Party for Freedom, True Finns, Swiss People's Party, National Front, Sweden Democrats, Flemish Interest, etc. certainly do.

Still nowhere near the level of influence the Republican party holds, so I'm not sure why you're comparing them?

[fengosa]

It is entirely relative, Endus. I can say that you're conservative, but compared to who/what? Are you conservative compared to Karl Marx? Are you conservative compared to Charles de Gaulle? Are you conservative compared to me?

Where does this political spectrum of yours begin and end? Is it the same as my idea of where it begins and ends? A large portion, if not most, Republicans considered Mitt Romney to have been a liberal, yet most liberals painted him as an "evil conservative" who wanted to kill women and homosexuals. Odd that these two groups had two very different opinions of the same person, no?

No one had to paint him as an evil conservative, we had the words straight from the horses mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slFZ8K2aBoY

[Nakura Chambers]

Endus, conservative and liberal are subjective, because we attach our own meaning to them. Why do you think so many people fight over what these words mean? "Conservative" may mean something entirely different in the United States, than it does in Saudi Arabia or even Germany. Liberal certainly means something else in most of Europe, than it does in the United States. Certainly the liberalism of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson differs from the liberalism that you espouse, and that people like Barack Obama espouse.

Even within individual countries, people disagree on what the definitions are. You might think that a real liberal would never support the Second Amendment, but this man very much considers himself to be a liberal (and is a prominent one at that), and thinks that a real liberal is someone who strongly supports the Second Amendment:

[Deleted]

The American political system evolved very differently from the European systems and according to my literature (I'm studying political science), the Americans didn't evolve the same labour unions, nor very strong, and curved the hype about wealth equality: Thus they never delivered a social democratic party.
"the differences in political systems across the globe is mainly due to the difference in when they are created by an elite group who chooses to create a coalition with the masses", roughly translated from German.
As it goes for liberalism etc. The terms themselves have different meanings as stated above:
Liberalism itself is a very broad topic with a lot of differences within itself, you have from John Locke, Immanuel Kant etc. Which also branches off into Neoliberalism in International Relations.
But the political climate in the United States and Europe is very different and even more so as all the 28 EU countries now have to put their parties into "fractions" within the EU Parliament by finding their counterparts. (The UK Tories do not share the same fraction as most other European Conservatives for example)
The American Democrats and Republicans would be considered very far right in mainstream European political climate despite having terms like liberals connected to the Democrats.

[fengosa]

Endus, conservative and liberal are subjective, because we attach our own meaning to them. Why do you think so many people fight over what these words mean? "Conservative" may mean something entirely different in the United States, than it does in Saudi Arabia or even Germany. Liberal certainly means something else in most of Europe, than it does in the United States. Certainly the liberalism of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson differs from the liberalism that you espouse, and that people like Barack Obama espouse.

Even within individual countries, people disagree on what the definitions are. You might think that a real liberal would never support the Second Amendment, but this man very much considers himself to be a liberal (and is a prominent one at that), and thinks that a real liberal is someone who strongly supports the Second Amendment:

I think you'd be surprised at how little an issue things like guns and abortion are outside of the US. You rarely if ever hear these things discussed by Canadian politicians. There's no left/right divide on the issue, the problems were rationally dealt with through common sense and appropriate laws.

[Deleted]

I think you'd be surprised at how little an issue things like guns and abortion are outside of the US. You rarely if ever hear these things discussed by Canadian politicians. There's no left/right divide on the issue, the problems were rationally dealt with through common sense and appropriate laws.

Abortion is a contentious issue in some Catholic European countries, Ireland, Spain, Poland. In Latin America you have very rigid abortion rules supported by left-wing governments in Nicaragua and Venezuela.

Soicial conservativism, nationalism, fascism are not rare in Europe. The main difference are the radical capitalist and social darwinist views of many US Republicans, where only the Tories come close but don't have their ideological fervor.

But since Liberalism is economically center-right to right, your label fits as well.

[Deleted]

Perhaps not, but the Party for Freedom, True Finns, Swiss People's Party, National Front, Sweden Democrats, Flemish Interest, etc. certainly do.

Those parties vary pretty wildly from eachother.

[arel00]

Many people say Democrats are a right-wing party simply because, if you cross the ocean and enter Europe, center-right is where American Democrats idea will stand. The left over here is composed by all the different shapes and forms of Socialist parties and Green parties.
That is what a left wing party is, in any country where the mere word Socialism isn't as scary as it seems to be in the US. Most American Democrats I know would be scared shitless if they suddenly had to face European left-wing laws.

[zealo]

The right-wing over here are more left-wing and socialism sided than your democrats, i find that statement to be pretty accurate coming from a European PoV.