The designation "left wing" "moderate" "right wing" produces bizarre results if you compare one countries "right wing" with another country's "right wing". This is because the designation is fairly contrived.
If you look at several of the social and governmental polices of the US Republicans, they fit the definitions of what it means to be a liberal several centuries ago.
(Compare the work "LIBERALISM IS A SIN" to the politics of today.)
The US political structure is very different from European political structure. Communism, socialism, and or democratic nationalism, has always been on the fringe in the US while in Europe they are often a majority force, along with such forces a monarchism, autocracy, etc. that never existed here. The US political system is primarily progressive in nature, both democrat and republican, having been founded on a mixture of English liberal philosophy (Locke, etc.), and Calvinistic religious philosophy.
There are very different forces at play in the US than in Europe.
Let me speak of Republicans for a moment, since you singled them out. Republicans are not a monolithic group. Regan welded to very fractious groups together, the social conservative democrats (which included the Catholic vote) and the economic and social conservatives (Calvinist lineage protestants) who are the traditional backbone. In addition there are the economic conservatives but social liberals (Giuliani, Mccain). That is why when you watch US politics, the republican party will have the occasional flair up and a huge internal fight. It is really unfair to call either of these three groups moderate, rightwing, or leftwing. The republican party is currently driven forth by its social conservative positions. However it is quite possible that, if the social conservative policies where achieved, the party could be driven forth by other issues.
The democratic party in the US, right now is a mess. It is in very real danger of fracturing if it doesn’t gain control of the Senate or House this year. Democratic policies have become increasingly ridged over the past few years. Republicans like to say Democrats are the party of no ideas, but I find that if you look at the Democratic party, the ideas are very black and white with no room for dissenting views.
In general, I think that both political parties are driven forth by some very wrongheaded philosophical ideas that distort their views on reality. For example, democracy is not the be all and end all of world peace, nor does simple promoting multi-culturalism mean that militant Islam will stop hating you. Both parties seem to be lacking any deep understanding of history and philosophy, especially that of other nations.
2006-09-30 11:58:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Liet Kynes 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
North America was occupied by by English imperialists (protestants) and South America was occupied by Spanish and Portuguese imperialists (catholics).
Try reading a book sometime. *Any* book.
.
2006-09-29 20:03:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
What on earth are you conversing approximately? Get your data immediately: -the U. S. would not enable comparable-intercourse marriages; purely 2 out of the 50 states (California and Massachusetts) do -maximum ecu countries don't have what you will possibly evaluate "kinfolk values," as they're very leftist social democracies like the united kingdom, France, and the Scandinavian countries. Many ecu countries welcome gay rights, abortion, pornography, and secularism way extra desirable than the united states -John McCain isn't liberal. he's a Republican, and notwithstanding i'm not grouping all of them mutually, oftentimes conversing, the Republican social gathering is a real-wing or conservative social gathering. Barack Obama, in spite of the undeniable fact that, like lots of the Democratic social gathering is liberal. next time, do somewhat study earlier you rant and whinge in regards to the loss of life of your "kinfolk" values of intolerance.
2016-10-18 05:55:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋