To All:
I am getting extremely confused by the terminology used to describe political affilitations. In America, I grew up seeing Republican party and the Democratic party. Then the Independents, then the Grass roots party. Republican=conservatives while democrats=liberals. As I was reading everyones posts over again I saw that someone said the UK's definition of a liberal was different. Now, Ive read neo-conservative (is that live neavue riche) and paleo-conservative (does that mean they are old like dinosaurs?) I am really getting lost on peoples position and this new descriptions of the party systems, and like wise am not informed on what European parties are and what they stand for. If I could get people to weigh in on this, I would really appreciate it. Then maybe I will have a better understanding of some of these posts and will be able to respond in more intelligible manner.
Thank you for your patience and your time.
Joeanna :)
Re: If you all could be so kind and weigh in on some defintions
Joeanna,
From a Scandinavian point of view, the two main political parties in the US, shares the same politics. We would define both the Republicans and the Democrats as extreme “liberal”. I know that word is used in a complete different sense in the US.
The reason is that every political party has an ideology and a reality as a base for change. Since the reality is the same for every political party in the country they also are pretty much the same compared to the same type of party in another country facing another reality.
Thus, in Sweden all our seven parties could be called social democratic since they have been ruling for almost 100 years. The Scandinavian model resembles Canada in many ways and can be summarized with: free education (including university), free health care, extensive economic support for the unemployed and financed by high taxes.
The ideology of the Social Democrats is that socialism should be achieved by reforms and not by revolution (= communism). In reality Social Democrats has been balancing market liberalism and socialism, trying to pick the raisins from each.
//CL
Liberalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Conservatism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
Social Democracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Re: If you all could be so kind and weigh in on some defintions
Dear Christian,
Sweden has seven parties? Have they all been long established parties, or add ons over the years? Do you find that having so many different parties (which I am assuming that they have different platforms) can cause a negation of true issues, ie such as we term a dark horse president--James Polk voted due to such a split between the parties was able to become president under neither party.
A friend of my kids grandmother lives in Sweden, was a foreign exchange student, still comes to visit and was very interesting talking with her and her friend of what it was like in Sweden. I was impressed by the lack of violence your country has, and that they are not as uptight as Americans are about alot of things. She did say that everything over there was so expensive, goods like jeans, shirts etc. But I suppose, if you would have to pay for you education and healthcare it would all probably work out pretty even in the long run.
Interesting. Thank you.
Joeanna
Re: If you all could be so kind and weigh in on some defintions
I can not believe that not a single person can define their parties and what they generally stand for, in ANY country. That simply amazes me, and disgusts me at the same time. Its like a car accident, you dont want to look, but yet you just cant help it.
I am an independent- a party that has no opinion other than a person who votes for whomever makes promisesthat the independent person agrees with regardless of the party said person is affiliated with.
ok, now if anyone else cares to add to this, I would truly like to read it. There are alot of people here from different parties, countries with different parties and I know that you all should be able to state what party you back and what that party stands for.
Truly,
Joeanna
Joeanne Nee
Come now Joeanne Nee, you remind me of those university students who used to beg me for lecture notes instead of turning up to lectures. What you are asking for is some kind of short cut to learning, instead of studying.
I’d suggest that you Google every piece of terminology that you find difficult to understand, and I’d also suggest that you start reading a shed-load of current political literature, so you can keep up with all the new terminology you come up against. Because what your asking for, is in some sense, an idiot’s guide to political terminology.
Just between you and me though, I don’t think you’re an idiot – but I think like all good students you should not take the easy option by hoping some one will give you ready-made answers, that’s an easy ride.
Besides, you need to find out for yourself what new ideas and political terms mean. It is only through the act of interpretation and discrimination that you learn how to distinguish between what is non-essential knowledge and what is essential knowledge.
Finally, I never did hand over any of my lecture notes to fellow students because it only served as a disincentive to studying, and to attending important lectures.
Joeanna,
I would also class myself as an independent. I have always been taught that at the end of the day, the person is more important than the party. The fact that Political Parties aren't set in stone seems to suggest that such a fluid attitude is best. I know a number of people committed to one party or the other, often over-looking flaws and weaknesses to "keep the faith".
I have always tried to be an equal-opportunities critic. It's more fun.
In our effectively 2-party state here in the UK, I would take the Labour Party over the Conservatives most days. This is because I believe that the state has a Keynesian role to play in the economy. The Conservatives are a little too ready to ignore the problems of the free market in my opinion.
However, as Labour enjoy quite a majority of the vote in my area, at elections I'm free to vote for the party whose policies I most agree with - regardless of whether they have any chance of securing a majority of the vote. Most often than not, I vote for the Green Party. I don't agree with all of their policies, but they probably come closest to my (often changing) point of view.
Liberal in the UK probably comes close to Libertarian in the US. There was a split in the international meaning of the word around the time of the Industrial Revolution, between those who wanted the state to ameliorate the harshness of the industrial system (through welfare etc), and those who worried more about the potential ill-effects of government intervention.
To make matters confusing, both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the UK would use the term to describe themselves, while denying it of the other! In theory they both claim to want the greatest freedom for the individual (as do Labour), but have different ideas on how this will be achieved.
Dear Matt,
So the Uk has a two party system, but what role does the house of lords play? Is that like congress is to us?
It is confusing if both parties are claiming to be liberal. Here the republicans are supposed to stand for less government, probusiness (in other words pollute away, stuff your pockets it will all trickle down theory) and then you have the democrats who want more government, give the people more welfare (which republicans call them liberal-which somehow is suppose to be an insult that I havent been able to figure out how yet) The grass roots party is suppose to be a party that brings government back to the people and not so much a party affiliate, and thats as far as I got on what they are about. (Lets face it, after I listened to Perot debate, that little man freaked me right out, and I did turn a deaf ear)
As far as what Courtney had to say, I will try to make a point during nap time to do some research. After I finish researching whether we can call ourselves a revolutionary power in another thread by rickgibsonlaw.
Look forward to reading more!
Thanks,
Joeanna
Joeanna,
So the UK has a two party system, but what role does the house of lords play? Is that like congress is to us?
This being the UK, a little history is necessary to understand things. Parliament originated as a council to the Monarch, a group of church leaders, nobility, and respresentatives of the various counties (which are kinda our equivalent of states - kinda). As the Monarchy weakened, this council began to assume more and more power (well, the rich nobility did at least). Eventually the powerful landowners realised they could rival the Monarch, and Parliament began to play a role in the ruling the country.
It was split into two sections. The House of Lords was the nobility and church leaders. The House of Commons consisted of those representing the counties (hence the names).
The House of Lords was originally the most powerful. As the UK became more democratic, and the power of the nobility receded, the balance of power between the two houses shifted. Nowadays Parliament is dominated by the House of Commons (made up of our elected representatives). The Lords remains because we're generally quite bad at getting round to changing anything.
Originally consisting of nobility and church leaders, the Lords now has a slightly different make-up. Lords Spiritual (church-leaders), and Lords Temporal (either inheriting the title, or appointed by the House of Commons).
The Lords are seen as a checking force on the House of Commons. Once a bill has been voted on and approved by the elected representatives in the Commons, it's passed onto the Lords for a vote. If a bill is rejected, it passes back to the Commons for another vote, then onto the Lords again. However, once a bill has been voted on and passed by the Commons three times, it bypasses the Lords. Giving them the power to delay a bill only.
If all this seems a little confusing. That's because it is.
Here the republicans are supposed to stand for less government, probusiness (in other words pollute away, stuff your pockets it will all trickle down theory) and then you have the democrats who want more government, give the people more welfare (which republicans call them liberal-which somehow is suppose to be an insult that I havent been able to figure out how yet)
Being an economic liberal (free market, trickle-down etc) here is associated with Conservatism. Whereas being a social liberal ("ItŽs not my place to tell others how to live their lives") is more a Social Democrat position.
Message was edited by: Matt Murrell
I have completely lost track of where everything is, so have popped this here.
Hello David,
The situation in Iraq is too chaotic to make a reliable judgement on what’s needed; whether American servicemen should leave to reduce the level of tension their presence provokes or stay because they’re still needed to help with security, is open to wide differences of opinion. On the one hand, given the risks taken by millions of Iraqis to elect their own government, I tend to think we have an obligation to go along with what they request and, at the moment, what is being asked is for the US military to remain to help maintain security. On the other hand, the insurgency can lay claim to being on a mission and find willing recruits as long as the American presence remains and merely result in intensifying and prolonging hostilities.
Recent news reports indicate the country is on the brink of civil war, with Iraqis saying the situation for them has become much worse and how they are forced to stay indoors most of the time. There’s now real concern of a brain drain occurring in Iraq --- one female medical practitioner having said that around 98 percent of doctors in Iraq are suffering from depression and are desperate to leave the country. Similar stories keep popping up on the news and elsewhere.
It’s impossible to predict what’s likely to come to pass. No expert was able to predict the Asian financial crash, fall of Soeharto, or East Timor gaining its independence. Foreign policy is often made on the run and in a capricious manner.
Those are my ramblings, for what they’re worth.
….
notes:
I like Solve De Calagula’s writings and think they do have a place here… the image of people whose heart slops around in a jar they carry around with them without being aware of it (that’s the sad bit) keeps coming to mind. He made me feel better about myself, for some reason.
It’s ridiculous to compare the transgression of plagarism committed by a well intended and harmless individual on a public forum with the US administration who are rolling in money, power and influence.
I voted for the Greens in the last two elections --- Labor sold out on asylum seeker policy, playing along with Howard's race-card tactic to attract the popular vote.
Re: If you all could be so kind and weigh in on some defintions
iagaco,
There is a lot of evidence that Iraq will remain in turmoil until the US leaves Iraq. The long term situation might be improved if the country was to break up into three parts but this is opposed by the US and Turkey (in its case fear of the Kurds getting their own Sovereign State and causing the Turkish Kruds to want the same).
While the Israel/Palestinian conflict continues the US will be considered a Pariah and Muslims throughout the world will be drawn to anti-American movements. The US pretence of wanting democracy for Muslim countries is belied by almost everyone of its allies, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt to name some.
I doubt that the Security forces being trained will be loyal to the government if it comes to suppressing Shias rather than Sunnis. This could well happen if Mochtad al Sadr becomes active again. I am sure that he and Sistani will not play any American game for very long and allow the Iraqi Security force to be a proxy for the US to maintain its influence in Iraq against what they consider to be the Shias interests. The Americans are once again guilty of underestimating the intelligence of the common Iraqi.
Re: If you all could be so kind and weigh in on some defintions
Brolly, thanks. Both you and David make a number of valid arguments on another thread where there’s some common ground as well as a divergence of viewpoints. It makes for an interesting discussion.
The Americans are once again guilty of underestimating the intelligence of the common Iraqi.
I have to agree with you there. Here's an essay that looks at that from a slightly different but related perspective.
Violence and Translation
Veena Das, Department of Anthropology, Johns Hopkins University,
15/9/2004, Social Science Research Council, USA
http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/das.htm
Re: If you all could be so kind and weigh in on some defintions
Hi Joeanna
Bit of a new contributor but i hope to get the hang of it soon; if that means we are allowed to take and recieve criticisim. Funny feeling i will be getting a lot.
The bewilderment you feel i fear is a world wide problem. Parties seem to seamlessly slide into whatever niche they think will keep them in power. It is interesting to see Matt's opinion of taking not just Labour, but New Labour over the Conservative party most of the time. This is a valid point. Perhaps he would let us know if this was always the case or was he a conservative supporter previously as New Labour is but a reincarnation of conservatisim, embracing capitalism to the hilt. If it suits those wanting to hold on to power they will rename or reinvent to do so.
It is not that i would suppot any, living in Norhtern Ireland i cannot, but am stuck with many head in the sand parties of all hues.
Cheers Andy
Re: If you all could be so kind and weigh in on some defintions
Dear mcds,
Dont sweat it, some are nicer than others. Take what you need and leave the rest. I get pummeled quite a bit, but its not like I have to have them over for dinner.
You live in Northern Ireland? If you dont mind me asking, are you irish, or a brit who lives in Northern Ireland? If you are Irish, are you not allowed a vote on how your own country is run? I have always wondered why the brits were still there and not back in their own country, making Ireland whole. The violence there is aweful, I wonder how that would compare to how the Iraqis must feel, having a foreign body occupying their country for their own good.
(I dont mean that to sound as smarmy as it reads, but I have a feeling Im gonna take a beating on this one! But thats ok, my great grandparents come from Ireland, except for my Greatgramma Gussie who was from poland, whos daughter married an Irishman--much to her dismay.)
Chin up, good luck and welcome!
Joeanna-a third generation American
