Republican/Liberal
- Thread starter GemHaters
- Start date
- Status
In Australia our major conservative party is called the Liberal Party and they seem to be slightly left of the Democrats of America, the Australian Labor Party are even more left of the Liberals, and the Greens are even more left than the Labor Party.
In elections I tend to vote either Labor or Green which must make me a raging left-wing nut when compared to most Americans.
In elections I tend to vote either Labor or Green which must make me a raging left-wing nut when compared to most Americans.
I'm a socialist because I get free government healthcare through the VA.
Can I move to Australia?
True enough. Not only are the terms arbitrary, but they can differ from country to country. And even from region to region-- a Massachusetts Right Winger is not the same as a Texas Right Winger.
Sure, the Right Wingers in the US want to change things, too-- back to the way they were in the Middle Ages.
But what I actually was talking about was not making changes in government or society, but changing their ideology when faced with new information. It's about open-mindedness. A real liberal is open minded.I totally agree that some conservatives are reactionaries. At least the movement since the eighties is pretty radical as it intends to undo the steps we made towards what you could call social democracy or moderated capitalism.Sure, the Right Wingers in the US want to change things, too-- back to the way they were in the Middle Ages.
I like to phrase it like this, anarcho-capitalists deny social antagonism, communists wanna fight out the class war, fascists project it onto Jews (modern European fascists sometimes project it on Muslims) and social democrats wanna moderate it via the welfare state, via aggregate demand management and so on.
While I cherish liberal tolerance and open-mindedness in matters of social policy the main battleground is the above, economic policy.
It's not free. You earned it.
The problem is that the right wing has been so thoroughly co-opted by fundamentalists that believe the Bible is literally True. They can't change their beliefs.
The GOP's stance on gay marriage is a perfect example. Any true "conservative" worth his salt would say it's none of the government's goddamned business who I marry.
While I disagree with many philosophically conservative stances, I can at least respect their point of view. Fiscal and personal responsibility are not bad things. But once the fundamentalists get involved and try to ban evolution and substitute it with prayer in public schools and all that stuff, I have no time or patience for it.
Not all conservatives, Christians, or Republicans have it out for science; I see no reason why science should invalidate my faith. I think we should behave ethically and morally with our discoveries, but there is no reason to fear scientific facts. As far as schools, I believe in choice and would like to see more parents be able to choose what education they want for their children, be it private, public, or homeschooling, without breaking the bank. If I were to have children, I would not have them in the public schools; I consider the majority of public schools failures and I would certainly like them in an environment that instills sound morals as well as academic skills. My sending a child to private school, or wanting that option to be more accessible, is no threat to anyone.
As far as gay marriage, I do not have a problem with civil unions for legal/financial purposes, as long as the government does not force churches to change their practices or otherwise harass them in any way because of said disagreement. Separation of church and state means the two "sides" should both leave each other alone. Churches can decide who they will perform marriage rites for, but I have no problem with a gay couple having their union recognized by the government.
As far as gay marriage, I do not have a problem with civil unions for legal/financial purposes, as long as the government does not force churches to change their practices or otherwise harass them in any way because of said disagreement. Separation of church and state means the two "sides" should both leave each other alone. Churches can decide who they will perform marriage rites for, but I have no problem with a gay couple having their union recognized by the government.
I don't really support either party, especially the lunatic nutjobs, obstructionist clowns, lobbyist-owned lackeys, and hypocritical fools who control the party platforms.
That being said my usual form of voting for the less scary of the two major candidates usually results in me voting democrat, though in the last governor's race I literally voted for a prostitute seeing no difference between Cuomo (the democrat who won an never had a chance of losing) and the other guy whose name no one knew. I would like to vote for the best candidate, but our primitive election system means that my vote for someone else will usually result in the guy I really, really, really don't want winning over a guy I just really don't want.
That being said my usual form of voting for the less scary of the two major candidates usually results in me voting democrat, though in the last governor's race I literally voted for a prostitute seeing no difference between Cuomo (the democrat who won an never had a chance of losing) and the other guy whose name no one knew. I would like to vote for the best candidate, but our primitive election system means that my vote for someone else will usually result in the guy I really, really, really don't want winning over a guy I just really don't want.
Who does that leave?
I agree. This is why I advocate election reform: 1) The elimination of the Electoral College, and 2) The ranking of candidates in order of preference.
Conservative - but more centre/right than far right.
While I do support getting rid of the Electoral College, I prefer the system used in Louisiana and France (and I'm tempted to say somewhere on the West Coast too). Everyone who wishes to run can, there are no primaries. If someone gets a majority, they are elected. If no one gets a majority, the top two go to a runoff.
In theory I would accept instant runoff (if that's what you mean by a preferential ballot) but its seems to me that in the one place where it's really used, Australia, it has kept the two party system pretty much locked in place.
Now, if I had the power, I would use preferential ballots for the House and the state assemblies through STV where each district has several seats. Voters rank candidates and every candidate with more than a certain percentage of the votes (depending on the number of seats) get elected. If not enough candidates are elected, the candidates with the fewest votes are dumped and their votes are given to the candidates marked second on those ballots. Repeat as necessary until everyone is elected.
In the first few years, it wouldn't change things much in the U.S. but would allow minor party candidates to be elected--at least in the sense of "minor party" meaning candidates from the big two parties who do not support the party base having a real chance. It would also mean that an area with say a 55/45 split couldn't be gerrymandered to give the party with the 55% every seat anymore.
I'm pretty sure in France candidates are chosen by the parties without any input from non-members (and becoming a member involves more than just declaring yourself so like in the US). I think you must be thinking of some other country, although I don't know which. The primary system as it exists in the USA is more democratic in that regard than the election systems in Europe, which probably makes up for the lack of competition from third/fourth/fifth/etc. parties to some degree.
My views are all over the place, and frankly I think both conservatives and liberals are insane 
so I guess that makes me neither left or right. I've used the term "up" a couple of times.
What's really turned me off politics in general- and I suppose this is nothing new, only it's gotten worse in the last decade or so - is that at some point "liberal" and "conservative" stopped being political philosophies and started being religions. I actually wrote more on this subject in this post, but then I remembered this isn't a TNZ thread, and I've seen physical fights break out over this topic, so I'll stop there.
In terms of voting, up here in Canada we have two left-leaning parties and one right. During not the last election but the one previous I did something I'd never done before. I attended the place of voting, was counted, stood in the booth for 5 minutes mulling my options, and then passed back an unsigned ballot because I couldn't in all conscience support any of the parties (but out of respect for my grandfather and others who fought for our freedoms I would never not go to a polling place on an election day). It'll be several years before we see another federal election, but if one were held today I'd probably end up doing the same thing. There have been a few occasions in both the US and Canada where people have advocated the addition of a "None of the Above" option to ballots. I'm really curious to see how that might affect elections; I'm sure None of the Above would likely win in a number of places. (Of course what happens then in these ridings is the big question mark which is why we simply can't ever have such an option in reality.)
Alex
so I guess that makes me neither left or right. I've used the term "up" a couple of times. What's really turned me off politics in general- and I suppose this is nothing new, only it's gotten worse in the last decade or so - is that at some point "liberal" and "conservative" stopped being political philosophies and started being religions. I actually wrote more on this subject in this post, but then I remembered this isn't a TNZ thread, and I've seen physical fights break out over this topic, so I'll stop there.
In terms of voting, up here in Canada we have two left-leaning parties and one right. During not the last election but the one previous I did something I'd never done before. I attended the place of voting, was counted, stood in the booth for 5 minutes mulling my options, and then passed back an unsigned ballot because I couldn't in all conscience support any of the parties (but out of respect for my grandfather and others who fought for our freedoms I would never not go to a polling place on an election day). It'll be several years before we see another federal election, but if one were held today I'd probably end up doing the same thing. There have been a few occasions in both the US and Canada where people have advocated the addition of a "None of the Above" option to ballots. I'm really curious to see how that might affect elections; I'm sure None of the Above would likely win in a number of places. (Of course what happens then in these ridings is the big question mark which is why we simply can't ever have such an option in reality.)
Alex
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
