|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2010 17:14:43 GMT
The U.S. has elections extremely frequently compared to any other country, which both indicates its fear of government and its desire to prevent elected officials from carrying out their mission properly.
It takes far longer than 2 years for an elected parliament to implement the measures demanded by the citizens. American Congresspeople have to start thinking about the next election the moment they are elected. Why not a 5-year term like other countries?
|
|
|
Post by cristina on Aug 5, 2010 4:11:34 GMT
Is there no one who thinks that Arizona's SB 1070 immigration bill incites discussion? I know it is international news. This bill really chaps my hide. It seems that the majority of Arizonans and Americans support this position. However no one has asked of my opinion. And I see this same behavior happening elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 5, 2010 5:18:10 GMT
You might want to make a new thread for it, Cristina. I agree it needs to be discussed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2010 10:57:05 GMT
Is there no one who thinks that Arizona's SB 1070 immigration bill incites discussion? I know it is international news. This bill really chaps my hide. It seems that the majority of Arizonans and Americans support this position. However no one has asked of my opinion. And I see this same behavior happening elsewhere. Don't feel bad Cristina,I feel the same regarding the poor showing of posts from the majority of regular posters on here about the OIL SPILL,and there is a thread that's been up since" it" happened back in March!!
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Aug 5, 2010 15:03:53 GMT
I only didn't post to the oil spill thread because I am participating in another thread on the same topic elsewhere.
As for AZ's immigration bill, I've posted my rather radical laissez-faire take on immigration somewhere here already but I think there will always be good political hay to be made fear mongering immigration and immigrants, and particularly so in a down economic phase. Xenophobia sells. At least in the US and Western Europe, but probably almost anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2010 16:50:51 GMT
I posted that in a fit of pique this morning with NPR News on in the background,with their latest report on the Spill and was reading Cristina's post about her perceived apathy,simultaneously. My apologies for my impulsivity. I probably should demonstrate more restraint....(can't unring the bell, I guess...)
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Aug 17, 2010 15:40:32 GMT
Since May in the UK we have had a Liberal/Conservative coalition............
And it seems to be working quite well...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2010 15:43:35 GMT
I would love to hear more about this when you have time Mick. We had a thread on here just prior to the elections there and some chat about it, but,I haven't heard much more about how things are since then.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 17, 2010 16:06:27 GMT
Re: the Liberal/Conservative coalition in the UK -- Would that it could be so civilized in the US! There was so much talk at inauguration time about "reaching across the aisle", but it's obvious that the sick conservative element in the US will do anything to further their twisted, myopic agenda. To repeatedly see beneficial bills, programs, and ideas lied about and killed simply because the other side proposed them is to watch ones country be continually under siege by forces I can only conclude are evil.
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Aug 17, 2010 20:40:12 GMT
I did the quiz although the questions are American biased of course and I'm not really in the ideal position to give an opinion. Neverthless I ended up 3/3.
I don't really want to get into political discussions here but I'll just say that the Liberals haven't been in power in my lifetime so it's hardly surprising that they agreed to share. For now each party manages to stem the rather more radical views of each other so it's not too bad.
The alternative here is Labour who have a track record over many, many year of virtually bankrupting the country because of their ideology which on the face of it seems reasonable but can never work in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2010 22:16:27 GMT
Germany survived 5 years of a coalition government. The thing with those of us outside any given country is that generally all we care about is the country's foreign policy, and we don't pay much attention to what is happening domestically.
Actually, Sarkozy in France made an interesting experiment when he was elected. He 'seduced' a number of Socialist and other political figures to be members of his government, and it had a major "shock-and-awe" effect on the opposition. Several frustrated politicians jumped at the chance to be recognized at last (for example, Bernard Kouchner, the co-founder of Doctors Without Borders and a prominent Socialist, accepted immediately to be Foreign Minister), and a number of non-politicians took the bait as well, because they never dreamed in a million years that a president would ask them to serve on his cabinet.
It turned out to be a cruel illusion. Some of the Socialists became incredible turncoats and abandoned all of their former values, just to stay in power. Koucher had a muzzle placed on him immediately and France has no Foreign Minister at all -- Sarkozy announces all foreign policy while Kouchner looks on in silence. And the non-politicians were completely neutralized. They thought that they had a better chance of "changing things by being in the system" but as it turned out, they were just happy to shut up, receive their comfortable salaries, and make believe that their hollow statements were useful.
Every now and then, one of the ex-Socialists or the non-politicians has accidentally mouthed off about something (which is only normal, since Sarkozy is against every value for which they stand), but the very next day (after receiving "instructions") they are in front of the media to say that their statement was completely misinterpreted and that is not at all what they meant to say. I would imagine that the Lib-Dems in the current British government will be eating crow often as well.
This autumn, the illusions in France will be cancelled, because Sarkozy will get rid of the dead weight in his government, including just about everybody whom he mistakenly called on. His own political party is crumbling as his popularity reaches new lows and people don't want to be associated with him well before the next elections. He will name a new government with the few remaining stalwarts and continue his new political orientation to bring the National Front into his camp.
Political maneuverinng will continue forever in every country in the world, but it really makes one want to puke sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by gertie on Aug 20, 2010 20:09:57 GMT
I am a little late to this party, but would like to speak a bit about the poll and my results. The poll found me to be in line with the center of the Supreme court, which I find a little...disconcerting, considering I had only two answers which they did not define as "conservative". It seems to me the center should be well...half way. As far as the poll goes, it seemed to me some of the questions were kind of trick questions. For instance, the one regarding registered guns. I approached it from the idea certainly people should be allowed to have properly registered guns, but I feel it doesn't really come to the heart of the matter. I don't feel guns should, over all, require registration. I do think things like automatic weapons and hollow point ammo, as well as anything else that obviously is not required for the average person to do the normal things one does with a personal gun such as hunting and home protection should be registered and kept track of better than they are now. I say this because I know plenty of gun-crazy idiots with all sorts of stuff they've acquired by all sorts of strange goings on. Just a short while ago, we heard the sound of an explosion out of the blue. Seems some idiot a few blocks away had unexploded WWII ordinance he'd brought home as trophies and when his kids found it while going through the house preparing to move him to a retirement home they had called authorities. The bomb squad determined the safest thing was to explode it in a field. I am firmly against late abortions, by whatever name. If you've sat on your rump and failed to do anything until 5 months have passed, I think you can darn well sit on your tush another 3 and give it up for adoption. I say this because first, there are so many good couples out there that want to adopt, something that is becoming harder and harder to do since the stigma of unmarried and teenage pregnancy is pretty much gone and so many who used to put their kids up for adoption now opt to keep them. Second, you had MONTHS to do something. I am not naive enough to think these women should raise them, but there is no reason why they should anyway. My only exception would be for imminent death of the mother, as I suppose it is possible something might come up that was previously unknown, but given the easy access to at least minimal medical care, I really think this would be rare in the far extreme. Regarding the wish to know more information regarding how many actually seek late term abortion, that question is a bit harder to answer as different recording systems use different rule of thumb for what constitutes a "late term", some beginning as early as 12 weeks and others putting it around 20 weeks. I believe my state chooses 12 weeks, but abortions up to 20 weeks are possible. I don't care what corporations do on TV, one way or another, because I don't watch TV. I think people and corporations ought to be allowed to say what they like. No one says you have to listen. But I say that with the thought running through my brain that people are sheep and corporations have a lot of information regarding the psychology of advertising at their fingertips. It does give one pause. Actually the first place I came out with the label of "liberal" was on the point of suspected terrorists using civil courts, as I think they should be able to. Key in this is the use of the term "civil courts". Civil courts differ from criminal courts, for example, the standard of proof is often less. I feel if there is reasonable doubt they are on the up and up, they ought to stay put, and also that the suspect ought by that point to be the one to put his cards on the table first. This wouldn't be possible in a criminal court, but could work in a civil court. The other item where I came out with a liberal label was in the case of sentencing children to life in prison for armed burglary. As written, I felt too much was left out to side with sticking a child in jail for life. How old is the child? What weapon? Was anyone hurt? Did they act alone or were they under the influence of an adult? Were drugs involved? Obviously such a sentence requires them to be sentenced as an adult and would require them to be sentenced to an adult prison. I don't think I want to see a 10 year old sentenced to an adult prison for breaking into someone's home with a butter knife and stealing candy. Ludicrous as this may sound, we've had some crazy cases in the US over knives in the last few years. A young elementary student 6 or 7 years old hauled out of class in handcuffs by police for bringing a sealed science experiment box to class. The teacher had requested the kids bring experiments to school, and when it was noted the sealed box contained an exacto knife, police were called. In another case, an honor student was expelled from school because in the process of moving his grandmother over the weekend a butter knife was left in the bed of his pickup way against the cab underneath a permanently mounted tool box. Personally, I question what a school parking lot guard was doing climbing in the bed of a student's truck. A friend's sixth grader took a facsimile of a knife to school and showed a friend who reported him. This was not an actual knife and was made of a material that could not under an circumstances take an edge. It just looked like a knife. The court ended up with a finding that he was in fact not actually guilty of bringing a knife to school, but as the proceedings had traveled to that point, they were putting him on probation anyway. Wait, what? Yeah, I was shocked, too, but I read the documents from the court myself, and this is actually what they say. Bixa, regarding your relatives and their way of handling your "liberal" discussions. It is a shame they are not intelligent nor articulate enough to form actual arguments. Personally, I welcome intelligent discussion of the issues, but find such discussion is so hard to actually find. I feel if I am honest, my position is largely conservative. Certainly a part of this is the world in which I grew up, as I was a member of the first graduating class to actually be more conservative than their parents after the liberalism of the 60s, and I grew up in the ultra-conservative Bible-belt of the south. I have always thought this situation behooves me to at least listen to intelligently articulated arguments presented by liberals. I found it equally interesting what was left out of this poll. What about questions regarding such issues as the Arizona law aimed at illegal immigrants? Gay marriage? Death penalty for the mentally impaired? Registered Student Organization status for religious organizations on the basis of their track record as regards to discrimination? What about support by US citizens of the lawful and nonviolent activities of groups designated by the Secretary of State as terrorist groups? All of these are issues recently before the Supreme Court, and several if not all of them involve issues repeatedly brought before the Court.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2010 20:28:40 GMT
Obviously, we would need at least 100 questions in a poll to start to get a grip on exactly how we should be categorized.
Even so, responses would be difficult to classify considering that we are from different countries. For example, with 95 countries in the world having abolished capital punishment, it is impossible to a lot of people to even imagine its existence when there are questions about it. In France, it was only abolished in 1982, so there are still some people who are "nostalgic" about it for eliminating the most horrible people. Younger generations often can't even imagine the possibility of it, and plenty of other people have come around to the idea of the punishment being worse than the crime.
Obviously in countries like the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran or the Sudan, many think that capital punishment is completely normal and it is part of their daily life. I do wonder sometimes if the United States ever questions the company it keeps on this subject, but I suppose that that is part of "freedom," even if it is in conflict with most mainstream spiritual values.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 21, 2010 2:25:37 GMT
Thanks for reply #40, Kerouac. Not only is it illuminating in terms of the overall political picture in France, it's a capsule portrait of the cynicism of most politics.
Gertie, I think the point of the poll was not so much to put labels on those who took it, as to show how the current usage of the liberal/conservative labels applies.
It is interesting that almost every American who took this poll had the same slightly uncomfortable reaction to the same two questions, firearms and late-term abortion. The firearm issue is problematic for Americans because of the Constitutional reasons discussed earlier in the thread. Joanne perfectly laid out how the anti-abortion factor has manipulated language to create confusion and moral discomfort.
The discussion by Americans and non-Americans about guns was really illuminating in the way it segued into a conversation about constitutions in general.
I believe the purpose of the poll was not to help us hang labels on ourselves, but to make us think about what we truly believe and why.
To me, the real trick question in the poll is the one about the death penalty for a child molester. It's a nasty but pertinent moment of having to decide if you really stand behind what you believe. If you're against capital punishment, there can't be exceptions.
It was the either/or aspect of the questions that made them so thought-provoking in general, as the yes or no to each one in most cases means you're tacitly saying yes or no to lots of other things, even within yourself.
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Aug 21, 2010 6:21:35 GMT
Germany has actually nearly always had coalition governments, just not 'grand' coalitions. Grand coaltions are made up of the two biggest parties, the CDU/ CSU and the SPD. We've only had two of those, both only for 1 legislative period after which the differences turned out to be too big.
Much more usual are coalitions between major and minor parties and these are usually the more successful ones, like SPD/ Greens or CDU/ CSU and FDP.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2010 11:44:42 GMT
When Mitterrand was elected in 1981, nobody thought that the Socialists and Communists would be able to rule together, but they managed for the 5 years before the legislature was voted out. Five years later, they were back again, but the Communist Party has been dwindling since the 1980's and even more so when the communist countries suddenly disappeared. When I moved to France, it was 26% of the electorate (stronger than the Socialists) -- now it is down to about 7 or 8% (after having been as low as 5%). Now when the left makes a coalition or merges lists for the second round of an election, it is Socialists + Greens + Communists.
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Sept 9, 2010 17:48:31 GMT
No surprise to me that I count as a 6/6 "liberal" in their terms. In the UK, though, I think the idea of restrictions on guns, though not an issue between the parties, would be seen as philosophically conservative (maintenance of an ordered state of law and responsibility to the community prevails over individual rights) rather than liberal (freedom of the individual prevails over collective authority).
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Dec 30, 2011 6:42:58 GMT
This study is from 2007, but I found it interesting & a possible talking point for this thread. Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brainEven in ... nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently, researchers show.By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer -- September 10, 2007Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work. In a simple experiment reported todayin the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information. Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions. The results show "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research. Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative." They were instructed to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W. M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter. Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M. Researchers got the same results when they repeated the experiment in reverse, asking another set of participants to tap when a W appeared. Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley's Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said the results "provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity." Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy. Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict. Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas. "There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals. Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said. Political orientation, he noted, occurs along a spectrum, and positions on specific issues, such as taxes, are influenced by many factors, including education and wealth. Some liberals oppose higher taxes and some conservatives favor abortion rights. Still, he acknowledged that a meeting of the minds between conservatives and liberals looked difficult given the study results. "Does this mean liberals and conservatives are never going to agree?" Amodio asked. "Maybe it suggests one reason why they tend not to get along." Source
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Dec 30, 2011 15:41:04 GMT
Excellent find, bixa. Sorta gives new meaning to the phrase "knee-jerk conservatives" and discredits the phrase "knee-jerk liberals", doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Dec 30, 2011 16:42:04 GMT
I just did the quiz...I'm 5/6 Liberal..... ;D
When my vote for the liberal party in the last general election helped the conservatives into power I was horrified. I get so cross with the excuses that Mr Clegg et al spout when they support government policies that are completely contrary to their manifesto declarations. When we purchase items in shops at least we can take them back if they fail to live up to expectations...it does feel like we've been cheated and there's nothing we can do about it. I still wouldn't vote conservative tho....
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Dec 30, 2011 17:00:56 GMT
If you're the sort of person who uses that polite phraseology, yes. ;D
I wish my uncle could see this. He always said that liberalism was only logical.
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Dec 31, 2011 7:45:09 GMT
How widely understood is it in the US that you tend to define "liberal" (and to some extent "conservative") rather differently from the rest of the western world? What that research shows is that there is a broad distinction in mental "stuctures" that are currently identified with particular political expressions: but you could easily find the single-minded, simplistic and authoritarian approach devoted to radical revolutionism (which is why I'm not at all surprised that some prominent neocons were equally prominent Trotskyites in their time - the underlying psychological makeup seems much the same to me). A devil-take-the-hindmost approach to regulation of markets and opposition to welfare state policies was once (and still is, in France) called "liberal"; opposition to the idea of state intervention in family life was once considered "conservative". Even something like the Political Compass www.politicalcompass.org may not be subtle enough to capture all the possible variations.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2011 13:33:27 GMT
I agree, Patrick, there are huge differences in the use of various words as well as in the understanding of concepts like "big government" or "capitalism."
Spin doctors over the decades have completely perverted certain words -- just think of the dictionary definition of "welfare" compared what comes to mind in the US when the word "welfare" is used.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Dec 31, 2011 16:54:40 GMT
How widely understood is it in the US that you tend to define "liberal" (and to some extent "conservative") rather differently from the rest of the western world? Excellent point, Patrick. The original quiz in the OP was from the US, as is the report in #47. And yes, the self-identification by any label would certainly mutate its meaning. In the not distant past, well within my memory, liberal and conservative weren't always associated with political beliefs, nor did they provoke any automatic emotional response.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Dec 31, 2011 18:15:27 GMT
"Conservative" and "conservation" come from the same root, but today can you find a conservative who's an environmentalist?
|
|
|
Post by rikita on Jan 1, 2012 21:27:26 GMT
i am liberal according to all questions...
though in some cases my answer wouldn't really be as clear a yes/no answer as i had to give there... especially in the case of the late-term abortion - as i understood the question, they are speaking about a complete ban, and there i would disagree. i think there can be rare circumstances where i think they should be allowed (i mainly mean if the mother's life is in danger and at the same time the child's chance at survival isn't that high either)...
|
|
|
Post by ninchursanga on Mar 23, 2012 16:47:23 GMT
A bit late, but the quiz sounded like good fun and I took it. 6/6 it tells me; I'm a liberal and one who disagrees with most Americans and the Supreme Court a lot ;D No surprise, this can be attributed to not being American and having total different point of views than most people in the U.S.
For one, I think no-one should have any arms, not matter if they are registered or not. If you hunt for deer, fine, then get a gun. But some of the arms that are sold here and that people (want to) own is just beyond me. Also, I'm a firm believer that owning arms just contributes to a society being more violent. We've recently just had a shooting here, a police officer was shot at random by some student. Not to mention the massacre at uni a few years ago.
I'm also against the death penalty, regardless of what the crime is. But if I was forced to be a hardliner, I'd give in on the death penalty in exchange for abortion rights.
The question of late-term abortion was probably the only one I answered, thinking in a more U.S context. I'm convinced that it's a misnomer to think women who seek late term abortions are the ones who are too lazy to take a decision, or just behave irresponsible by slacking it off. Late term abortions are usually done by women who learn that their child is severely disabled. There are two problems in the U.S. and one is, that once the baby is born, doctors are obliged to do anything to keep the baby alive. Holland for instance has very few late term abortions, they are closely monitored and there is a procedure for it. Mother's who are expecting a baby so disabled it will not be capable to live, go into a care traject and it is decided together what to do, how long to continue medical treatment and when to switch to palliative care. Further, doctors in the Netherlands say it is better for the parents if they actually give birth to the child and then late nature take its course - however gruesome that may sound now. But this way they are given a chance to be parents, to welcome the child and it allegedly is much better for the parents grieving and recovery process.
In the U.S. another factor plays in, which is that abortions are not covered by health insurance and especially disadvantaged women do not have the financial means to pay for an abortion. Having an abortion often includes taking days of work, traveling a fair distance, etc. Sometimes even Plan B is hard to obtain. The longer you wait, the more money you need, the bigger the problem becomes. These kind of late term abortions could really be prevented by extending access to birth control and Plan B, by sound sex education. Instead, this country marches towards the middle ages, further and further infringing on women's rights, and providing their teenagers with a even less than mediocre sex education.
Alright, end of rant. This topic obviously hits a nerve with me.
|
|
|
Post by komsomol on Mar 23, 2012 18:36:44 GMT
Probably people should look into ways to end a pregnancy even a late one without it sounding like an abortion. Maybe we should call it early euthanasia to make it sound more merciful.
|
|
|
Post by apres on Mar 24, 2012 17:50:43 GMT
No surprise for me, I'm "liberal". But I've never liked the American use of the terms liberal and conservative, nor the way Americans simplify political matters in that way.
I did score "conservative" on one item, the one about political advertising.
About late term abortion, I'd suggest looking at Canada as an example. We don't have any abortion laws. Practice guidelines for abortion are handled by the medical profession, same as any other medical procedure. Therefore late term abortions are rare and done for medical reasons. So a late term abortion on demand without medical reasons is not illegal, but you would be hard pressed to find a doctor who would do it.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Mar 26, 2012 1:22:20 GMT
Ay, Ninchursanga ~~ that didn't sound like a rant to me, just plain common sense. What is sad is that it has to be said at all. In a a sane world, none of the points you cover would be cause for debate.
I have to say I haven't watched the "Obamaville" ad on another thread & probably will not. I am already far too depressed about the current consciousness and political climate in my home country.
The one point I'd argue with you, Ninchursanga, is that of capital punishment. No country that calls itself civilized should ever inflict capital punishment, period. (& yes, I do get that you were making an important point, not condoning capital punishment.)
Apres, I had to go back to the quiz to see the question on political advertising.
Here it is, for anyone else who didn't remember either: POLITICAL SPENDING AND FREE SPEECH Do you agree that corporations should be able to spend their profits on TV ads urging voters to vote for or against candidates in a coming election?
That's sticky! I think my gut reaction would also be conservative on that one, although I abhor the idea that those who we already let control so many facets of our lives should also be able to mold our political choices.
|
|