[Politics] Why is the world's opinion different than America's?

[Spectral]

I'm not an american and i don't wish to be mean or anything but can an american explain to me why all you hear from US citizens is how they don't want the government to meddle in their lives, they don't want socialized medicine, they don't want regulations on banks or corporations, they want a free for all society, but when something like katrina or sandy happens all of a sudden the government isn't doing enough to help them or doing it fast enough. You can't have it both ways, get a shovel and dig yourselves out.

This really isn't that complicated. Someone could easily espouse an ideology that government should stay out of day to day matters, but have power to deal with genuine emergencies. I disagree with that (socialized medicine seems like an obviously good idea to me, for example), but it's not contradictory for someone to want low taxes, low regulation, yet favor emergency assistance.

[Deleted]

The center in American politics is shifted a lot to the right respect to the center in European politics.
Someone who was said to be the senator (or congressmember) with the most liberal voting record has views considered in the center-center/right of the spectrum. A smudge to the right of Merkel and (the now politically defunct) Sarkozy, for example.

For the largest sectors of European voters, Obama feels familiar, a center-right guy of the kind that wins elections half the time in our countries. The republican party, on the other hand, embodies values that are so alien to the majority of us that are dismissed as fringe-thinking. It really doesn't matter which one is the candidate.

[iceberg265]

See my sig for this issue. I have lost a lot of faith in my country this election season...But hopefully there will be just enough people with brains to keep Romney out.

[inboundpaper]

Because they are in fact, different places, where people learn in different ways.

[Deleted]

Reason for these results is because most of the rest of the worlds civilized countries are way, way more socialistic than the states. Any socialist politicians who are commonground over here would be labeled as commies over there, which speaks volumes of the political atmosphere.

[Deleted]

Reason for these results is because most of the rest of the worlds civilized countries are way, way more socialistic than the states. Any socialist politicians who are commonground over here would be labeled as commies over there, which speaks volumes of the political atmosphere.

That might be part of the reason, but personally I'm not a socialist but still couldn't vote for Romney. To me even more important than ideology or political position is the basic requirement of being intelligent and not batshit insane.

[Tojara]

Because the rest of the world doesn't commonly share the same ideologies as the U.S.

Not bashing people who believe in right wing or republican policies, but if you care to look around these forums or any media source (be it internet, television, etc) the word 'liberal' is pretty much a bad word in the U.S, which to be frank.. absolutely fucking insane. Liberal typical describes those who are center of the political spectrum and/or slightly left, what's hilarious in the U.S is that the 'left' choice isn't even left or close to being in the center. Obviously it's political rhetoric that's been built up for a very long time but to outsiders the idea that the Democratic party is left, liberal or socialist is absolutely hysterical.

I'm not going to go into tirades trying to say that the Republican party is a bunch of Fascists or that they are EXTREMELY right (because they aren't) but the political situation in the U.S is right and a little bit less right. The rest of the world in comparison has parties who are slightly right, center, slightly left or even more so left in some regions. This is why you will see a landslide of support for the Democratic party from pretty much any nation, because it's the closest thing to a liberal (even though it's not) or left party they can get. Even those in the rest of the world who vote slightly right of center in their respective countries wouldn't vote Republican because it's a little bit too far right for them lol. Take Canada for instance, our conservatives are more LEFT than your democratic party.

Finally compared to a lot of the developed world the U.S is very behind when it comes to many social issues that most of us sit here scratching our heads in disbelief that certain things are still issues in the U.S. So to the majority of the rest of the world, your Republican party looks like a bunch of oppressive racists that can't change with the times.

We all care to some extent because your politics still effect us. Just like the EU as a whole has effected us financially, you also effect us in many different ways as a single nation. Lastly while some Americans might have forgotten Bush, the rest of the world will never forget.

As to Ron Paul? Most people probably haven't heard of him and would pick any choice over Romney. Other than that I think it's pretty well known that he doesn't like war and that ALONE makes him popular with the international community.

[Raphtheone]

@OP
At least here in Sweden, we're raised asking what we can do for our country, and not what our country can do for us. This makes us care more about those around us, including the less fortunate. Taxes is probably the simplest way to not care by caring (instead of the opposite).

[Bolson13]

If you click on the first link and cast your vote as well, you get to see a map per country on what they would vote (it recognises where you are from automatically btw).

If you then hover over the US, you will notice that Obama would win by 81% of the votes.



So that first link is probably a bit biased . Or perhaps it is because young voters (who would go to such websites) are more in the democratic camp.

Also notice that in countries where it is close to a tie or where Romney is leading are countries where you wouldn't expect it from. Like Iran or Russia being fairly close haha.




Also, the US elections should bring Europe more together it seems. Seems that our countries all indeed share at least the same basic view of how a government should be ran. Too bad the EU is not that




Now about why the rest of the world would vote Democratic over Republican.

People that only look at the puppets think like this:
Democrats = Kennedy, Clinton, Obama
Republicans = Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Palin
The democrats got that one pretty much in the bag right?

People that know a little about politics but not current, more the general line:
Democrats = a more left view, against going to war, more equal divide for the rich and poor.
Republicans = a very right view, goes to war to show power, Capitalism above all and especially for the rich and selfish.
Not that this is all true but it is perception. Pretty much an easy victory for democrats as well.

People that only care for the foreign policy:
Republicans = Bush, Romney pretty much badmouthing entire countries while he is there.
Democrats = No Bush, no Romney

People who try to follow American politics (which is limited obviously):
Republicans = responsible for the crisis, seem to only care about blocking everything the democrats want to do, seem to be steering more and more to the right, looking for war in the middle east.
Democrats = Universal healthcare, death of OBL, strong stance in the current crisis (instead of EU twirling around), Bailing out the auto industry which are jobs in stead of just banks.


That is how the world gets to voting 90% democrats. And that is not even mentioning that most of the world is more left then either so they would probably end up with the most left party of the US anyways which would be the democrats.




And in other news today, a newspaper here found out through our chamber of commerce, that Bain capital through our country has avoid 80 million dollars in dividend taxes. Apparently the investment into the purchase of an Irish farmacutical company went entirely through our country. Not illegal of course but stuff like that doesn't make it much better of course

[Deleted]

Most other "civilized/industrialized" countries have democratic socialism, Obama comes closest to that. The Republicans with their war mongering and religous craziness scare people.

[Strakha]

Most other "civilized/industrialized" countries have democratic socialism, Obama comes closest to that. The Republicans with their war mongering and religous craziness scare people.

Both parties represent the same awful system.

[DEATHETERNAL]

America is born of liberty. Many of us still remember the periods in history when we were truly free and retrained our liberty. Much of the rest of the world still has had no such experience of true liberty and will far more willingly surrender their liberty to soft tyranny. That is the reason for the disparity of opinion.

[Deleted]

America is born of liberty. Many of us still remember the periods in history when we were truly free and retrained our liberty. Much of the rest of the world still has had no such experience of true liberty and will far more willingly surrender their liberty to soft tyranny. That is the reason for the disparity of opinion.

And that was... when?

---------- Post added 2012-11-05 at 03:47 PM ----------

For instance, I'm a leftist social libertarian,

Isn't that what anarchism is?

[Skippy88]

My personal theory is airtime. 4 years ago Obama became the first Black president so he got a lot of attention so people got to know him. People don't know Mitt Romney since he's gotten less airtime. People generally vote for the guy they know. Even one day before the election and I've probably seen more media attention on Obama then Mitt.

I think the other is America has become very ideological. You could have a dog as the Republican nominee and people would still vote him for him regardless of who his opponent is or his policies are. I do get the feeling the World is going one way and America is going the other.

[Bolson13]

My personal theory is airtime. 4 years ago Obama became the first Black president so he got a lot of attention so people got to know him. People don't know Mitt Romney since he's gotten less airtime. People generally vote for the guy they know. Even one day before the election and I've probably seen more media attention on Obama then Mitt.

Now I don't have the numbers but I suspect that didn't hold true in the Bush/Kerry election haha.

But for Americans who wonder how much airtime US elections get.
- I have seen all debates here on regular TV (rebroadcast though since they are in the middle of the night).
- Our national channel which is mostly focussed on news spends probably around 2 to 2.5 hours of it per day for the last week or 2.
- It is mentioned in pretty much every news cast on every channel. If they don't have anything to report they will just talk about where they were. We saw obama in Florida with that blind pianist (forgot his name) and Romney on what they called a "apropriate rocky theme" in pennsylvania this morning, correct? It wasn't a rocky song though I was thinking
- I have seen both those Obama documentaries come by again. The one towards his election twice even. The one during his first year once.
- Late night talk shows (a little different here, more serious topics) all have a full show at least one day a week. And probably tonight and tomorrow as well. Note that we just have formed our own house just now. So enough stuff to talk about as well in stead of American politics.
- Right now on the radio they are making jokes about it.
- Newspapers report about it. Often front page news even.
- We have an "america expert" here who has very dry humor so he is touring through the US asking American opinions. It is a little funny though. 1 hour show.
- We have own reporters making mini documentaries. For instance we had a mini doc (like 45min?) about Canton Ohio. They asked people about Obama 4 years ago and now the same people again.


As you can see, it is covered pretty well . Luckily it wasn't a year where you have 2 primaries or it would be even worse. For some reason it sells papers here. Pretty sure the election night will get high TV ratings for a show in the middle of the night as well.

[Endus]

Isn't that what anarchism is?

Uhh, no. Anarchism is "nobody should ever tell me what to do/not do, even if what I want to do is murder some people".

Social libertarianism is the idea that government should be limited, and has no business getting involved in protecting people from themselves (but protecting them from others, within reason, sure.)

[ptwonline]

America is born of liberty. Many of us still remember the periods in history when we were truly free and retrained our liberty. Much of the rest of the world still has had no such experience of true liberty and will far more willingly surrender their liberty to soft tyranny. That is the reason for the disparity of opinion.

Yes, because having something like health care provided by the gov't so that workers don't feel trapped in their jobs that provide health insurance is an example of how Americans have "liberty" and other people don't.

---------- Post added 2012-11-05 at 04:51 PM ----------

How closely do you think the majority of respondents to these polls follow american politics? Of course they probably know Obama is the president of the united states and probably heard about how he was the first african american elected to that office. How many do you think are aware of who the governor of Massachusetts was from 2003 to 2007? (Hint: it's Romney). If you asked a bunch of people who they think should be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and gave them the choices of David Cameron or someone they never heard of, who do you think they'd pick?

Think back to the 2004 elections. The majority of people knew Bush much better than Kerry. Do you think most of the world would have selected Bush over Kerry? Of course not.

It's not name recognition alone that is important. You still need to do the job well enough for people to approve, otherwise being known is a NEGATIVE, not a positive.

Romney actually has an advantage because he is not known. Throughout the campaign the more people got to know him, the more his popularity went DOWN. Until, of course, the first debate and he went hard for the middle by basically turning his back on most of the things he had been saying before. Since a lot of people still didn't really know him, they saw and heard someone who sounded very much like a moderate and so they thought he was ok. If they had heard all the things he had been saying in the primaries and in the Presidential campaign before that he would never have been able to Etch-a-Sketch his way to the middle and pick up moderates. But they didn't know Romney so he got away with it and made it a reasonably close election.

[Deleted]

I'm instinctively turned off by negative campaigning and mudslinging. Even if Obama's 2008 election campaign was vapid hope and change rhetoric, people who dole out endless unsubstantiated claims, and barely present any policies themselves earn a lot more ire from me. So that's why my opinion might be different from some people who seem to be...enthralled by such rhetoric. I imagine that is a reaction shared by many people in many countries.

[Chickensoup23]

I think one link/video can explain a lot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfBKKh0C2eo

It's a republican thing to say that "they hate us for our freedom!".
Everyone knows that is bullshit, the CIA and Military know it, but the Republicans still keep yelling that because they know it gives them votes.

That's why Democrats are so popular outside of the US and why people prefer Ron Paul as Republican.
They have the most 'friendly' and humanitarian foreign policies.

So fucking true.
When he got boo'ed in that video, I thought to myself that people in the crowd were selfish, respectless americans. Because for once, that man in the video, spoke what we the world see as truth. There's a reason american brought hate upon itself. It's selfish when it comes to some reasons (such as discussed in the video) and everyone talking against it is hated by americans. They boo'ed their own senator for speaking what they KNOW is the truth.

This is why we prefer Obama.

[anthemm]

The rest of the world would vote for Obama because Obama is still perceived as progressive or liberal, while Mitt Romney is perceived as a hardline conservative, and therefore some kind of white conservative elitist who hates immigrants, wants to destroy the welfare state, and so on and so forth.

However, most everyone knows that Bush massively increased the size of government (just like Obama), and did very little to actually curtail any government programs. This is true for even Ronald Reagan: the man also expanded the size of government, and yet there's this myth that's propagated about Reagan which says that he was some kind of hardline, hidebound conservative which simply isn't true.

The real problem in America is this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-trillion.html

The rest of the world seems to be as clueless as Americans are. People somehow believe there's a massive difference between Romney and Obama when there isn't. The idea that Romney will destroy the welfare state and hates black people is ludicrous.

The reality is that people prefer rhetoric and political propaganda over substance and principle, including Americans, and including most everyone else on the planet, I guess.

---------- Post added 2012-11-05 at 06:31 PM ----------

I like that poll, Romania would vote 100% for Obama... but seriously now, yes, it's because of socialism, the big bad wolf many americans fear that europeans do not. Also, with all the smearing of Obama that he's muslim, that he's black etc, he loses more votes in the americans. In Europe the conflict against muslims is not so prevalent... they're right next to us and we accept them easily, however, for many americans the ideas that muslims are terrorists, that Obama is a muslim and socialist have been imprinted in their brains. And sometimes in voting, people don't vote for the best, but the smallest evil, and these many people see Romney as smallest evil.

Europe isn't "socialist." Moreover, the Eurozone, which could presumably be called socialistic, isn't doing too well, is it?

Definitions of socialism:

According to Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism), socialism is defined as:

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

According to Oxford Dictionary (http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...lish/socialism), socialism is defined as:

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy

According to Dictionary.com, socialism is defined as:

1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Stop using socialism inaccurately. Europe is not socialist. Period.